The Thoresby Miscellany, volume 13

$e

4
ut

pe ae. AIA
‘ee rae
CZ WE LY VO’ 2p SF 7 d y
cai ¢ ee
‘ Y

_ ee? Bee Pe a

Tree

a

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2021 with funding from
Thoresby Society

https://archive.org/details/thoresby027

THE

PUBLICATIONS

OF THE

THORESBY SOCIETY

ESTABLISHED IN THE YEAR
MDCCCLXXXIX

VOLUME XLVI

i NER AMGOY

<

=

»>¢

THE THORESBY MISCELLANY

Volume 13

THE THORESBY SOCIETY
16 QUEEN SQUARE, LEEDS
1963

s]
i

Jt

hl

VipatOUe.
PAD 18S aA ee
'

~~

tui

7

ERRATA

Page 31, line 36: for 1863 read 1872;
line 39: for 1879 vead 1874.

Page 117, note 139: for ‘“‘Susan Hall’’ read ‘‘Susan Brooke’’.

ir et s

é if it. Wh

“ae Sa. CF

*

:
:

Contents

PART 1 (1957)
Medieval Leeds : Kirkstall Abbey — The Parish Church

— The Medieval Borough J. Le Patourel
New Grange, Kirkstall pe opriiiles
Checklist of the Correspondence of Ralph Thoresby

H.W. Jones

Two Hundred Years of Banking in Leeds H. Pemberton

PART 2 (1960)

Leeds and the Factory Reform Movement /.T. Ward
Leeds Leather Industry in the Nineteenth Century

W.G. Rimmer
Working Men’s Cottages in Leeds, 1770-1840

W. G. Rimmer
Leeds Musical Festivals J. Sprittles

Obituaries : Harry Pemberton, G. E. Kirk

PART 3 (1961)

The Building of Leeds Town Hall Asa Briggs

Alfred Place Terminating Building Society, 1825-1843
W. G. Rimmer

Joseph Barker and The People Michael Brook

Note on ‘‘William Hodgson’s Book’’ — a Manuscript

in the Society’s Library
Index
ILLUSTRATIONS

22

26
54

87
I1Q

165
200
271

275

303
332

379
381

PLATE: Plan of New Grange, Headingley, surveyed by S.
Wilkinson, 1766 facing page 34

PLAN: Basic Plan of the Terrace Houses in Alfred Place
page 310

MEDIEVAL LEEDS

KIRKSTALL ‘ABBEY — THE PARISH CHURCH
THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH}?

By JOHN LE PATOUREL

1. KIRKSTALL ABBEY (1952).°

OF ALL THE monastic movements of the twelfth century,
one might almost say of the Middle Ages, none was more
spectacular, nor more widely influential, than the rising
Cistercian Order. It began in a small and obscure house in
Burgundy during the very last years of the eleventh century:
within fifty years the order had)knit into a vast organisation
some 300 monasteries in all countries of Western Europe:
it counted among its members some of the most influential
writers and statesmen of the day and a Cistercian monk sat
on the papal throne. In the middle years of the century the
order was drawing to itself a quite disproportionate share of
the offerings of the faithful, and it eclipsed all other religious
bodies in popular esteem. How are we to explain this astonish-
ing phenomenon?

One part of the explanation is that the Cistercians found
their prophet — or, as we should say, their public relations
officer — at the very start. St Bernard is not an attractive
figure in every respect; but no one can deny the power of his
message or the force with which he delivered it. Few men in
the world’s history have so dominated half a continent and
half a century. A mystic himself, with evangelistic fervour
and ceaseless and tireless energy, he was ready to meet the

“The three papers which follow were given as Presidential Addresses at the
Annual General Meetings of the Thoresby Society held, respectively, in 1952,
1953 and 1954. Apart from opening remarks of a topical or domestic nature, they
are here printed substantially as delivered. A short bibliographical note is
apvended.

* The eighth centenary of the Cistercian settlement at Kirkstall fell in the
year 1952.

2 MISCELLANY

universal question— ‘Master, what shall I do that I may inherit
eternal life?’ — with an answer that gave complete assurance
and certainty — ‘Enter here, live as we do: this do and thou
shalt live’. When the Cistercians invited men to enter their
fellowship, they had something to offer, beyond assurance,
that was different, significantly different from the conditions
to be found in other monasteries of the day. They appealed
to the puritan that is in all of us, whether dominant or recessive.
They offered austerity, simplicity, a frugal diet and hard work;
they had cut away most of the elaborate customs and ritual
which had grown up within and around the Rule of St Bene-
dict and, as they would have maintained, had obscured its
essential meaning.

But all this, however forceful, however attractive, however
strongly it appealed to the religious aspirations of medieval
men, would have been ineffective without the organizing genius
which the Cistercians found in an Englishman, Stephen
Harding. It was he who legislated, not only for the internal
ordering of each Cistercian monastery, but for the relations
between one monastery and another. It was this last matter
which agitated the minds of twelfth-century churchmen; for it
had been shown that an independent monastery was peculiarly
vulnerable in a feudal society, while, at the other extreme,
the highly centralised organization built up around the
monastery at Cluny depended too much upon the personal
qualities of the abbot of Cluny for the time beimg.. The
Cistercian constitution spread authority. The ruling body was
the annual chapter of all Cistercian abbots meeting at Citeaux;
the work of visitation, of keeping each monastery up to the
mark, was entrusted to the abbot of the founding house; for
every new Cistercian foundation received its nucleus of monks
from an existing Cistercian monastery, and the mother-house
retained a kind of parental responsibility for its offspring.

The first strictly Cistercian foundation in England was at
Waverley in Surrey and dates from the year 1128. But the
real beginning of the Cistercian movement in this country came
with the foundation of Rievaulx in 1132, a house colonized
directly from St Bernard’s monastery of Clairvaulx and one
in which St Bernard took a particular interest. He did, indeed,
take all possible care to ensure its success, writing to King
Henry on behalf of the new venture. The coming of these
monks, with their new ideas and infectious enthusiasm, created

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: KIRKSTALL ABBEY 5

a great stir in the North of England and, as is well known,
brought on a crisis in the Benedictine abbey of St Mary under
the walls of York. The story of the secession of a group of
monks from St Mary’s, of their trials and tribulations both
material and spiritual, of their settlement near Ripon, of their
appeal to St Bernard and their adoption as a daughter house
of Clairvaulx under the name and title of St Mary’s of Foun-
tains, is a story that needs no re-telling. But it is, perhaps,
well to remember that Fountains and Rievaulx soon became
and long remained the most influential Cistercian foundations
in the North, perhaps in all England, and that together they
dominated the religious life of Yorkshire for a considerable
time. They were, moreover, exceedingly fertile; Rievaulx with
her five daughter-houses and eleven grand-daughters; Foun-
tains with eight daughter-houses, including Kirkstall. It is an
amazing testimony to the vigour of Fountains in its early years,
that, founded itself in 1132, it could spare monks (thirteen at
a time, and of the most responsible and promising) to colonize
eight new monasteries in the twelve years between I139 and
7151.

Kirkstall comes towards the end of the series. The man who
provided the initial endowments was Henry de Lacy, grand-
son of that Ibert de Lacy who received from the Conqueror
extensive lands in these parts. He, in fulfillment of a vow
made on his sick-bed, approached the abbot of Fountains and
offered estates in Blackburnshire for a new Cistercian mon-
astery. The nucleus of a community set off from Fountains
on 19 May, 1147, and settled at Barnoldswick. For a number
of reasons, among which, we may guess, was the trouble
caused by their destruction of the parish church there, the
place did not suit them; and Abbot Alexander set off to find
a new site. He lighted on a spot in Airedale where there was
already a settlement that sounds suspiciously like a survival
of the Celtic monasteries of an earlier day. Dispossessing or
absorbing the men whom he described as hermits, the abbot
secured the site (and presumably such buildings as already
existed) for his monks; and thither the community transferred,
according to the chronicle that is our authority for this early
history, on 19 May, 1152. There are difficulties about this
date, as 1s well known, for the chronicler is not consistent, or
at least appears to be inconsistent, in his chronology; and, in
any case, the transfer could not have taken place all on one

4 MISCELLANY

day. But this, no doubt, was the date which was commem-
orated in the abbey as the anniversary of the settlement at
Kirkstall; and it would do very well as the basis for calculating
a centenary.

Kirkstall was never an outstanding monastery in wealth or
religious or scholarly fame. It did not serve as a nursery of
monasteries as Fountains or Rievaulx had done. Its abbots
cut no figure as ecclesiastical or political statesmen: it does
not ever appear to have produced a remarkable scandal. Yet
it was founded at a wonderful moment, when the Cistercians
seemed to have the world at their feet; when they were sub-
limely sure of themselves; when their early constitution had
been filled out with the legislation of thirty years of annual
chapters; when St Bernard still dominated Western Christen-
dom and the pope himself was a Cistercian monk; when, in
Yorkshire, St Ailred was ruling over a community of 600 at
Rievaulx, and Henry Murdac, abbot of Fountains, still
retained some control of his monastery after he had become
archbishop of York. While the future Kirkstall community
was at Barnoldswick, from 1147 to 1152, no less than sixteen
Cistercian monasteries were founded in England. Kirkstall,
then, was founded at the time of Cistercian greatness, before
any hint of decline could be detected, when indeed their very
success was a matter of some concern to the Cistercian fathers.
Kirkstall, moreover, was quite characteristic both in its
foundation and in the manner of its establishment. It lay very
close to the centre of Cistercian inspiration, for the abbot of
Fountains was in a measure responsible for its well-being and
St Bernard had not lost interest in Fountains. This seems to
be the significance of the founding of Kirkstall in 1152; not
that there was anything unusual about it, but, on the contrary,
that it was in every way a representative Cistercian founda-
tion. What may be learnt of Kirkstall may be taken, with
judicious care, as typical of the order as a whole.

This conclusion will immediately suggest one way in which
we may assess the significance of Kirkstall Abbey in our
own day — that its remains, literary, documentary and
architectural, may be taken as good evidence of the nature of
an organization which had a very important place in the
religious, social and political structure of this country eight
hundred years ago; remains which serve to remind us that,
though the institution they represent is dead, it had a large

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: KIRKSTALL ABBEY 5

share in creating the conditions out of which our present
civilization has grown.

But that is, perhaps, a rather general consideration which
would apply to many things besides the ruins of Kirkstall
Abbey. There is also a more special significance, peculiar to
these very ruins. Kirkstall, we have just noted, was founded
at the moment when the Cistercian Order had reached maturity
and the height of its fame, and it was as characteristic a
Cistercian monastery as you could hope to find. At the moment
when they had worked out their way of life and government,
the Cistercians had also evolved the architectural form of a
monastery most suited to their peculiar needs. The architectural
differences between a Cistercian and any other monastery are,
it is true, differences of detail rather than of fundamentals,
but they are significant differences for all that. As far as style
is concerned, their architectural forms in this country are a
blend of influences from Burgundy (the regular use of the
pointed arch, for example, or the pointed barrel vault) and
of native Anglo-Norman tradition (as shown in a preference
for the wooden roof over nave and transepts, the central lantern
tower, and the building of all arms of the cross-plan to equal
height). On these architectural elements, the Cistercians im-
posed their demand for simplicity, their renunciation of
elaborate and costly ornament, tall bell-towers and all colour
and precious materials in their churches. The result is some-
thing that will always appeal to the artistic puritan, to those
who, temperamentally, prefer the unadorned beauty of form
to elaborate ornament; for the Cistercians, almost in spite of
themselves, were good builders, and were quite capable of
producing buildings which, though often of great size, could
express the beauty of simplicity.

Now all these traditions and influences seem to reach their
synthesis just at the moment when Kirkstall was planned and
built; earlier designs were tentative and were in nearly every
instance replaced by something more elaborate within a century
or so; while in later designs the native tradition comes to
predominate, so that there is little that is specifically Cister-
cian, for example, in the thirteenth-century choir at Rievaulx
whose ruins still grace the lovely valley of the Rye. But in
the plan and style of Kirkstall, as Dr John Bilson has shown
so well, you have the perfect type of a Cistercian abbey, de-
signed and built at the time when Cistercian building was most
original and most influential.

6 MISCELLANY

What good fortune, then, that the buildings at Kirkstall
should have been so well preserved! That the most entirely
characteristic Cistercian building in this country should have
come down to us the most complete and least altered is luck
indeed. Of the early foundations, Fountains and Rievaulx
rebuilt their choirs, Waverley and Ford have disappeared,
Byland and Roche are of later and less characteristic design
and are, in any case, far more fragmentary. Kirkstall, it
appears, never had the money for ambitious schemes of re-
building; consequently, if we confine our attention for a
moment to the church, the only alterations of any consequence
that were made to the original building were the substitution
of a large fifteenth-century window for the group of lancets
surmounted by a circular opening at the east end, minor
alterations at the west front and the raising of the central tower
by one storey; and as the only part of the church that has
completely disappeared since the Dissolution is the timber roof
over nave and transepts, it requires remarkably little effort of
imagination to picture this typical Cistercian abbey church
as it was left by its builders, some eight hundred years ago.

Moreover, if you wish to appreciate the differences between
Cistercian and other types of contemporary building, Leeds
can show, at Adel, what elaborate decoration was lavished
even on a simple village church in the second half of the twelfth
century; while the crypt of York Minster will provide indica-
tions of the richness of a greater church of the time — the very
richness against which the Cistercians were consciously react-
ing. All three, Kirkstall, Adel and Archbishop Roger’s
cathedral at York (of which only the crypt remains) were build-
ing at the same time; and, in comparing them, you can see to
perfection the special qualities of Cistercian architecture.

In Kirkstall Abbey the city of Leeds possesses a jewel. If
it were not so blackened with industrial soot, so hemmed in
by power stations, railways and ironworks, or cut in half by
a main road along which the buses roar to the outer suburbs,
Kirkstall might be one of the most famous monastic sites in
the world; for, intrinsically, the ruins are more attractive and
more valuable archaeologically than Rievaulx or Fountains.
But since, in this country, we prefer to have our ruins, and
the meditations appropriate to them, in solitary places, Kirk-
stall Abbey is less regarded than it deserves to be. Still, to
bring actuality to our ideas of that phase of European develop-

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: THE PARISH CHURCH 7

ment when the Church could still humble kings and emperors
and Cistercian monks dominated the Church, the ruins of
Kirkstall Abbey will provide an excellent aid to the
imagination.

2. LEEDS PARISH CHURCH (3953)

LEEDS PARISH CHURCH, like other buildings of a similar nature,
represents an institution with a long history, an institution
which has played a very large part in the lives and thoughts
of men and women in Leeds through all the centuries and
which, in some sense, stands as their visible, tangible memorial.
As such, though the centre of the City’s life and bustle has
moved away to the west, it is without question the most historic
monument, the most deserving of reverent care, of all the
buildings in Leeds.

The sentimentalist and the antiquarian in us cannot but
regret the destruction of the old church, Thoresby’s church, in
1838. Yet any institution that is alive will be constantly adapt-
ing, altering and reconstructing its buildings, as emphasis
shifts from one kind of activity to another. In the course of
the nineteenth century, when the Anglican Church was almost
refashioned anew, nearly every church building that was a
lively centre of worship was so drastically altered that we, who
may feel that we know the old churches of England, would
scarcely recognise them if we could see them now as they were
in the year 1800, any more than the people of 1800 would have
recognised them if they could have seen them as they were
during the Middle Ages. Dr Hook was more drastic in his
reconstruction than most, though perhaps more honest; and
since he acted in this fashion, we have in the Parish Church
of Leeds, not one of those over-restored buildings that bear
witness neither to the ideas of the Middle Ages, since their
character has been restored away, nor to the churchmanship
of the restorers, since they were circumscribed by the body
upon which they operated, but a building which is fully
expressive of an important episode in the Anglican revival.

Canon Addleshaw and Mr Etchells, in their most interesting
book on the Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship, have
shown how the liturgical arrangements which we regard as

8 MISCELLANY

normal and even traditional in an Anglican church are little
more than a hundred years old. They can be traced to the
ideas of two groups of men, one associated with the University
of Cambridge, the other led by Dr John Jebb and the great
vicar of Leeds, Dr Hook. The idea that the altar should be
the single focus of a church, raised upon a platform and richly
furnished; that there should be a choir of men and boys in
surplices, occupying stalls between the congregation and the
altar; that the minister should occupy a stall in the choir,
moving out to a lectern or pulpit to read or to preach — these
and others were the expression of their principles; and in its
plan and arrangement the existing Parish Church of Leeds
was ‘the first large town church to exemplify’ these principles.
‘To many people,’ says Canon Addleshaw, ‘it is now almost
unthinkable that the chancel stalls in a parish church should
not be occupied by a surpliced choir; but the practice, however
common, is not old. The first church of any note in which it
was adopted is the present parish church of Leeds.’

The church which the present building replaces is not, how-
ever, entirely lost to us. We have descriptions by our patron
Ralph Thoresby, by Chantrell, the architect of the new church,
and by others none of them, it must be confessed, very
precise, though there are paintings and engravings to help
them out. From all of these, the picture of a large town church
of standard type and few architectural pretensions emerges.
Like so many other English churches, it would appear to have
originated in a Norman building, perhaps of the early twelfth
century and probably of cruciform plan with a central tower.
By the usual processes of enlargement, reconstruction and re-
pair it eventually assumed the form of a large parallelogram,
rather like Holy Trinity Church in Hull on a slightly smaller
scale. Whether any of the original twelfth-century fabric still
remained in positicn to the end is not clear; but Chantrell says
that he found architectural fragments of that period when he
was demolishing the old church, and it is a pity that they do
not seem to have been preserved. The bulk of the fabric, at
the time of the demolition, seems to have belonged to the
fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, but most of the character
had been taken from it by eighteenth-century alterations.

But a church is not simply a building. It is a religious institu-
tion which may outlast many buildings, a place of meeting,
a focus, an idea. Of the medieval parish church of Leeds, as

MEDIEVAL LEEDS. THE. PARISH CHURCH 9g

an institution, there is much that could be said — of the gift
of the ‘church’ with its revenues to the priory of the Holy
Trinity in the city of York, of the gradual establishment of
the vicarage on recognised principles, of the vicars themselves,
of the administration of the huge parish and the evolution of
the chapelries, the foundation of chantries and even, perhaps,
the beginnings of a grammar school. There is one detail of this
institutional history which has far-reaching implications. Holy
Trinity Priory in York was a dependency of the abbey of
Marmoutier in France, and had been colonized therefrom.
Marmoutier was the monastery founded by St Martin just
outside his episcopal city of Tours, as a refuge to which he
could retire from time to time for contemplation and the practice
of monastic austerities. In course of time it became one of the
richest monasteries in the western world, with possessions in
England as well as in France. Thus Leeds parish, in the Middle
Ages, indirectly contributed to the maintenance of a great
French abbey. The ease with which such connections were
formed in the twelfth century, and the difficulties to which they
gave rise in the two following centuries, provide a good example
of that mingling of English and French affairs that was brought
about by the Norman Conquest and of the gradual emergence
of two national monarchies in England and France during the
later Middle Ages.

Of the parish church as a theatre for the celebration of the
divine drama of the Mass, or as a lecture-hall for the expound-
ing of the reformed religion, as a meeting-place and social
centre at all times, as the place to which men and women have
brought their sorrows and their joys, their desperate petitions
and their thank-offerings, which has seen them at the solemn
moments of life and death and upon which more human emotion
has been poured than any other work of the hands of men —
all this needs only to be suggested. The fascination of an old
church, even should we regard it as an object of no more than
archaeological interest, consists in this, that it bears upon its
fabric the mark of all these things — indications of the original
design and the ideas that may be deduced therefrom, signs
of alterations and adaptations to meet changing circumstances
and doctrines, relics of furnishings and memorials as an
expression of the piety of all the ages. Much of this was lost,
in Leeds, with the demolition of the old church; but not quite
all. There are still monuments to knights and ladies, to priests

IO MISCELLANY

and gentlemen of the Middle Ages, and, with a significant
change of emphasis, to the rich burgesses and aldermen of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; the medieval font
survives, a fragment of stonework that may date from the
fourteenth century, and a certain amount of later woodwork.
The site has been preserved; and this in itself is one of the
most interesting reminders, when considered in its relation
to Briggate, of the early development of the city. Even the
dimensions of the old church were, it seems, in a general way
retained. In all this there is much to remind us of seven centuries
of life in Leeds and of the priests and ministers who, according
to their varying lights, have served both church and town.
But something like the reconstruction of the nineteenth
century, so far as the fabric was concerned, had happened at
least once before in the history of Leeds Parish Church. From
analogies elsewhere, it is likely that the Paynels’ church of
the twelfth century was a new building, yet it must have pre-
served something from its Anglo-Saxon predecessor. That there
was indeed an Anglo-Saxon predecessor, perhaps more than
one, is Shown by the Leeds entry in Domesday Book and by
the evidence of the stone crosses. These latter take the history
of a Christian institution of some kind on the site of the present
church back to the early ninth century; while a famous passage
in Bede’s Ecclestastical History may possibly mean that it goes
back to the seventh century if not beyond. We have no evidence
of the form or architecture of this early Anglian church; but
the very number and size of the relics that have survived show
that it must have been a church of some importance.
Fragments of carved stone, however, are not merely evidence
of antiquity, they are a memorial to the ideas and beliefs of
the men who erected the high crosses, even to the men them-
selves. We cannot identify, indeed, the personages originally
commemorated; but when W. G. Collingwood can find
Anglian, Celtic and Scandinavian elements in the design and
motifs of the great cross now standing in the Parish Church,
we are given a hint of the sort of people who were living in
Leeds early in the tenth century, at the time when Edward
the Elder of Wessex was hammering out the first kingdom of
England. A great part of the decoration of the crosses, as usual
in a barbaric art, is composed of abstract pattern, and it is
useless to look for symbolism here; but to find representations
of the Evangelists in such proximity to the heathen story of

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: THE PARISH CHURCH II

Weyland the Smith provides an interesting insight into the
minds of both artist and patron. The seeming incompatibility
needs no explaining away: how many of us could claim con-
sistency in all our notions?

The study of old buildings is one of the delights that brings
us together as a society. What is it that makes a ‘historic monu-
ment’? Why is it that some ancient buildings awaken all sorts
of echoes, while others — perhaps more beautiful in themselves,
perhaps more ancient — seem to leave us quite unmoved? It
may be that, to achieve the status of a ‘historic monument’ in
any sense that would satisfy us, a building should express or
record some idea, or bear witness to some fact or event which
is of historical significance, or that it should serve as a
memorial, unconsciously yet specifically, of the men and
women of the past. In such a sense, though it is still not much
more than a hundred years old and might only pass with
difficulty the tests of the Ancient Monuments Commission, the
present fabric of Leeds Parish Church is already a historic
monument; for not only is it the ‘prototype of a plan of
Anglican church, a plan which in its various forms since the
eighteen forties has been universally regarded as the only
proper one for an Anglican place of worship’, but it is a con-
stant reminder of Dr Hook and his eminent successors and
the tradition of churchmanship which they brought to Leeds.

But this, clearly, is not the whole matter. Even a complete
rebuilding of the fabric implies no breach in the continuity of
the institution, and enough still remains of the older fabric to
establish a ‘monumental continuity’ as well. The architect
seems to have been scrupulous in gathering up such memorials
as had survived; and by placing them in the new church, he
makes us feel that we have some contact still, tenuous perhaps
but real, with the parish church of Ralph Thoresby, William
Sheafield and Paulinus de Leeds. We do not have to look far
for reminders of the Middle Ages, the Reformation or the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries. And high in the chancel, with
its mingling of pagan and Christian themes, the great standing
cross, a memorial that has forgotten whom it commemorates,
takes us back over a millenium to the time when Leeds was
but a village and the men and women who lived here shared
ideas and spoke in words that we could hardly understand.
Yet, as the child grows into the man without losing his identity,
the Leeds of today is still in some sense the Leeds of the ninth

IZ MISCELLANY

and the tenth and all the intervening centuries; and nowhere
will you feel that identity as you will feel it in Leeds Parish
Church.

3. THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH OF LEEDS (ogZ)

THE FIRST STEP towards making Leeds a town, and ultimately
a great industrial city, was taken just about 750 years ago;
but Leeds as a human settlement is far older than that. Its
name, which was certainly pronounced as a two-syllable word
throughout the Middle Ages and perhaps later — Leedis — is
accepted as identical with the Celtic word Lotdis which appears
as the name of a British region in the Pennines at the time of
the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Northumbria. It is a reasonable
assumption that this region was a political entity of some sort
before the coming of our English ancestors; and by some pro-
cess, which it is not impossible to imagine, the regional name
Loidis has been perpetuated, in its uncompounded form, as
the name of one place, perhaps the chief place, within it; and,
however this may have come about, that place must surely
have been in existence while the region still retained some
significance. On this argument Leeds, as a place, is at least
1,500 years old; but of the character of this original British
Leeds we know nothing.

We know little more about its Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Danish
or Anglo-Norse successors, though continuity of habitation is,
again, a very reasonable assumption. The chief evidence for
this lies in the carved stones now preserved in the parish
church and the museum. From these it can be argued that
there was an important church in Leeds at least from the end
of the eighth century, possibly a monastery, more probably
perhaps a minster, in the contemporary sense of that term —
that is, a church which in origin at least was a missionary
centre served by a group of priests. Evidence of a church,
even an important church, does not quite amount to evidence
of a civil settlement; but priests or monks have to be fed and
clothed and housed, and at least we can postulate a small
settlement of farmers and craftsmen.

Some time before the Norman Conquest, as Domesday Book
shows, Leeds had become a fair-sized village, if indeed it had

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH 13

not always been so. In the time of King Edward seven thanes
held the place ‘for seven manors’; in 1086 there were 27
villeins, 4 sokemen and 4 bordars, that is, at the least, 35
families together with a priest. Leeds can have suffered little
from King William’s savage harrying of Yorkshire, for it had
been worth £6 before the Conquest, while at the time of the sur-
vey its value has risen to £7. But there is nothing in all this to
differentiate Leeds from her rural neighbours. There was a
church and a mill; the manor was an important one held by
an important Norman baron; but there is no suggestion as yet
of urban development. Domesday Leeds was simply a large
village, its inhabitants occupied in rural pursuits.

The beginnings of Leeds as a town, and it is fairly certain
that this really was the beginning, is marked by the creation
of a small borough within the manor by Maurice Paynel (or
“de Gant’), then lord of the manor. The document which records
this act is the well-known charter, given in his name, which
is printed in Whitaker’s Lozdis and Elmete. Besides this
printed text, of unknown origin, there are two others still in
manuscript; one, apparently of the seventeenth century in
the Spencer-Stanhope Collection at the Cartwright Memorial
Hall in Bradford, the other, slightly later, among the Stevens
MSS. in the Leeds Reference Library. All three are bad copies,
to the point of unintelligibility in many passages; and partly
for this reason, no doubt, partly because no original or near-
contemporary copy is known to exist, and partly also, perhaps
principally, because the subsequent history of the borough
which it created has been so little known, this charter has
been looked upon somewhat doubtfully by historians. There
is really no cause for such doubt. The relationship of the exist-
ing copies one to another and to the lost original from which
all, directly or indirectly, must be derived, can only be
described in outline; but since the Leeds charter is clearly
founded upon, indeed copied from, Roger de Lacy’s charter
to Pontefract, in a manner that is perfectly normal in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries, there is no reason why the original
text should not be re-established with some precision. There
is, moreover, nothing suspicious about the charter; it belongs
to a recognised category of borough charters (Manchester’s
medieval charter belongs to this same category); and its pro-
visions are so completely in accord with what we can now
know of the borough in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,

14 MISCELLANY

that we could have inferred much of its content-from the later
extents and reeves’ accounts of the manor even if no other
trace of the charter itself had survived. In short, the evidence
that can be brought in favour of the authenticity of this first
municipal charter of Leeds is far stronger than anything that
can be said against it; and the same is true of the date it
beats == 12071.

It is a modest little charter, not worth anyone’s forging. It
gave the burgesses no political rights, no self-government, no
mayor, no aldermen; it did not licence any gild-merchant nor
any trade gilds; it did not give any widespread exemption from
tolls or other such hindrances to commerce; it did not allow
for the election by the burgesses even of their humble reeve,
nor treat them as in any sense a community or association; it
did not create a market in Leeds and its reference to a fair is
of doubtful significance. Clearly Maurice Paynel’s borough
can have had little in common with boroughs like Bristol,
Nottingham or Newcastle.

Let us see what, in general terms, the charter did give. It
provided that the burgesses should be free; that they should
hold their tenements freely, at a rent of 16d. a year for each
full tenement or burgage; that these burgages might be bought
and sold, as units or subdivided; and that the holder should
be free to build what he pleased upon his burgage. It created
a borough court, in which the procedure should be somewhat
freer, more suited to a trading or industrial population, than
that of the ordinary manorial court; and it provided that the
burgesses need answer a charge in no other court save in pleas
of the Crown. It gave the burgesses freedom from toll but
only within the manor, for Maurice Paynel had no power
to grant a more extensive exemption. Finally it reserved the
lord’s right to force his burgesses like other humble tenants
on the manor, to bake their bread in his bakehouse, and to
pay him a proportionate sum whenever the king imposed an
aid upon his boroughs. All this may be summed up as per-
sonal freedom, free tenure and a borough court with a
somewhat freer procedure. These are simply the lowest condi-
tions precedent for urban development; and such modest
privileges imply that there was little, more probably no such
development in Leeds already. That is why it can be said
that the charter marks the very beginning of Leeds as a town.

Indeed, the whole thing was something of a speculation on

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH I5

the part of the lord of the manor. This was the great period of
town development in Western Europe. In countries and regions
where trade had begun to flow early, after the great stagnation
of the Dark Ages, in North Italy, in North-Eastern France
and the Low Countries, towns had grown quickly and had
often had to fight for their freedom against their lords; where
this movement had come more gradually, as in England, the
towns, if not consistently encouraged, were at least tolerated
and fitted into the political and social structure. But once it
had been shown that towns might be profitable, for they could
be taxed, military service could be demanded of their citizens,
tolls levied on their trade and rents collected from shops and
stalls in their markets, then enterprising lords, lords who could
afford if necessary to take a chance, might try to establish
towns from nothing or almost nothing, on their estates. It
meant giving up revenue derived from the land as agricultural
land in the hope of securing much greater revenue, and some
prestige, from trade in the future. Some schemes were more
ambitious than others; some had an eye to military as well
as financial advantages; some succeeded and some did not.
Maurice Paynel was doing in Leeds what hundreds of his con-
temporaries were doing up and down Europe; but his was
one of the modest schemes partly because he was not, after
all, one of the greatest lords of the land, and partly because
he could not foresee the conditions of five hundred years later.
There can have been very little but faith to encourage the
founding of a town in Leeds in the reign of King John.

From the terms of the charter, from some of the later evi-
dence and from legitimate analogy, Mr Woledge has been able
to locate Maurice Paynel’s little borough and describe its
physical shape. It was not, as it used to be thought, co-extensive
with the manor, but consisted of a group of tenements, and a
relatively small group, within it. Maurice, it seems, first set
out the line of a street, a wide street that might hold a market,
the street we call Briggate. Along this street and on both sides
of it, he marked out a number of building plots, of standard
size, and offered these, on the terms set out in the charter,
to his tenants and, presumably, to anyone who would come.
With each plot went half an acre in Burmantofts. Acceptance
of one of these tenements made a man a burgess, with all
the liberties laid down in the charter. Such tenements were,
it goes without saying, intended to attract those who were

16 - MISCELLANY

engaged or who proposed to engage in trade or some industrial
activity; for, although there was nothing to prevent a burgess
from acquiring other land on the manor, such tenements were
far too small by themselves to provide a living for a family.
The embryonic borough of Leeds, on the ground, was no more
than the aggregate of these tenements, physically distinguished,
if at all, from the rest of the manor only by their garden fences.
In this it resembled many such foundations.

It was a modest charter and it was the first step. It did not
create a town in Leeds, still less recognise the existence of
one that had already developed spontaneously; it simply pro-
vided an opportunity. Men cannot engage in trade or industry
if they are subject to the unfreedom of the ordinary manorial
tenant: if they are personally bound to the manor: if they
must work some days in each week on the lord’s demesne: if
they cannot buy or sell or divide the land on which their shops
and workshops are built: if their trading disputes can only be
submitted to the archaic procedure of the manorial court.
Maurice Paynel gave his burgesses the primary, the essential
liberties; but he could not create trade; and it was only the
erowth of trade and industry in Leeds that would determine
whether his little borough would grow into a town.

Very little evidence has been discovered so far to show how
the borough fared during the first century of its existence, save
that some time between 1207 and 1258 the Monday market
was established. Indeed it is not until the early years of Edward
III’s reign that we can take stock of the growth of Leeds as
a town. For this period we have the keepers’ accounts for the
last five years of Edward II’s reign, when the manor was in
the king’s hands following the forfeiture of Earl Thomas of
Lancaster, the almost illegible extent of 1327, and the import-
ant extent of 1341 of which a half, but quite unaccountably
only a half, has been printed in translation in vol. XX XIII
of the Society’s publications. At this time the lord’s revenue
from the whole of his manor of Leeds amounted to about £90
a year in the currency of the period; and in 1341 those items
which can be classified broadly as industrial and commercial
were leased for £41 a year, that is just under half the total.
The most profitable of these items was Leeds mill, the double
water-mill on the river, which was leased for £12 a year in
the middle of the thirteenth century, and now in t 2AT for 12a a
year. Not strictly an urban institution, for any agricultural

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH 7

centre needed a corn mill; but Leeds mill always seems to
have been something out of the ordinary and may well have
contributed to the industrial beginnings of the town. Then
there were the burgage rents, reckoned at £4. 5s. 10d. a year,
and the profits of the seignorial bake-house, £1. 6s. 8d. There
_ was the toll which the lord levied at the fairs held in Leeds on
ae teasts of St Peter and St Paul and of .St Simon and St
Jude (29 June and 28 October respectively), the toll he levied
on goods brought by non-burgesses to the Monday market,
and the rents he drew from the stalls erected there. All these,
together with the profits of the borough court, were valued at
49. 6s. 8d. In addition to this, the accounts of the last years
of Edward II’s reign mention one fuller’s mill in Leeds, a
forge and a coal-mine at Carlton Cross.

In considering these figures, it should be borne in mind
that they are only assessments made as a guide to the manorial
officials when they were leasing these various items; what
profit the lessee might be able to make in any particular year,
over and above the sum he had to pay in, we have no means
of knowing. They are only of significance relative to one
another. Nevertheless, assuming that the value of money was
constant over the interval, the revenue of the manor had more
than doubled between 1258 and 1341; and though the evidence
does not permit us to attribute the advance wholly to the growth
of the town, this must have had something to do with it. And
already the pattern of this growth is beginning to appear. In
this first century there is no sign of any phenomenal develop-
ment of trade in Leeds; one might even suggest that the terms
of Maurice Paynel’s charter showed that he hardly expected
any such development, for trade demands far more advanced
liberties. Clearly the Leeds fairs and the Leeds market were
of local importance only. The one fuller’s mill, the forge and
the coal-mine were more significant. Leeds would be built on
cloth, on iron and on coal.

For the remainder of the fourteenth century, four reeves’
accounts of the manor are known, those for the years 1356-7,
1373-4, 1383-4 and 1399-1400. Originally the series must have
been complete year by year, and there was at least one other
extent made during the course of the century; but so far as is
known these four accounts are the sole survivors of what must
once have been a splendid series of records. Fortunately they
are well spaced, and in themselves full and complete. From

C

18 MISCELLANY

them, with subsidy rolls and other stray documents, it should
be possible to get to know something at least of the more
important and interesting inhabitants of fourteenth-century
Leeds, such as Adam Gibbarne the reeve, the successive
generations of the Passelew family, Ralph Poteman, a vicar
of Leeds to whom we can now give a date, or John, the master
of the schools, whose appearance in these records takes the
history of education in Leeds back to 1343. From them, also,
it should be possible eventually to describe the topography of
medieval Leeds and generally, if the expression may be per-
mitted, to provide the city with a ‘medieval history’. So far
as the growth of the town, as a town, is concerned, one’s first
impression on reading these accounts is of extraordinary
stability, almost of stagnation. Seignorial revenue remained
remarkably constant with, if anything, a tendency to decline
at the end of the century. A closer examination suggests that
urban or at least industrial progress is not necessarily propor-
tional to the total revenue of the manor.

The evidence provided by these accounts for industrial
development during the later part of the fourteenth century
is fragmentary but suggestive. There was one fulling mill in
1322, and it was worth tos. a year. In 1357 it was worth 24s.,
and there was a second fulling mill, a new one, worth 13s. 4d.
a year; in 1374 the two mills were leased for 30s. and 17s. a
year respectively, and in 1384 for 30s. and 26s. 8d. In 1357,
for the first time so far as these accounts go, two empty plots
were being leased for tenters, and their rents are thereafter a
constant item. Cloth manufacture may have been developing
very slowly in Leeds but it was developing. Our first real
glimpse of Leeds market comes in 1374 when 4s. was collected
from the rent of 12 shops there and Robert Passelew was rent-
ing an empty plot on which to re-erect his stall. Another hint
is perhaps contained in the fact that Agnes Baxter was paying
2s. a year for licence to bake bread in her own house. Was the
seignorial bakehouse no longer able to cope with the demand?
The coal-mines, on the other hand, do not seem to have main-
tained the revenue they produced in 1321; but at least there
were three of them in 1384 in place of the one in Edward II’s
reign.

It must be said, however, that these scraps of evidence,
welcome as they may be, are scraps and no more. They do not
tell the whole story, and they do not even tell the story that

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH IQ

might be told. Perhaps one cannot expect that each small
social or economic development will be reflected immediately
and directly in an account of manorial revenues. And indeed
we have proof that this is not so. When an inquiry was made,
in 1399, into the activities of those who, throughout the county
of York, were producing cloth contrary to the monopoly given
by King Henry II to the weavers of York city, two were
reported in Leeds, John Morley and Robert Webster, each of
whom was said to have produced four cloths a year for the
past 22 years contrary to the said monopoly. It is not that
there is anything remarkable about this; more than two such
weavers were found in many neighbouring villages; and quite
possibly there were others who were not reported; the point is
that this is evidence of industrial activity of which the manorial
accounts tell us nothing. There may well be much else besides;
but while we may hope that additional evidence may come to
light, it is unlikely that we shall ever be able to measure,
quantitatively, the industrial growth of Leeds during the
Middle Ages.

The impression remains, however, and will remain unless
something wholly unexpected turns up to modify it, that the
development of Leeds as a town, to the end of the fourteenth
century, was steady but slow. Yet even that is very different
from saying, as Professor Hamilton Thompson said in 1926,
that ‘the medieval borough, thus created in 1207, has no
further history’. He was led to make this statement, we may
suppose, partly because he did not know of the fourteenth-
century reeves’ accounts, but partly also because he seems to
have misunderstood the nature of Maurice Paynel’s borough.
In his essay on ‘The Charters of Leeds’ he writes as though
the charter of 1207 was intended to transform the whole manor
into a borough, and to create thereby something on the lines
of Nottingham or Leicester. But Mr Woledge has shown, and
evidence found since he wrote his essay has confirmed his
conclusion, that the borough was a small foundation within
the manor; and, as we have seen, the ambitions of its founder
were very modest. It is perfectly true, as Hamilton Thompson
observed, that in later manorial documents manorial affairs
are more prominent than borough affairs; but that is not
because the borough had lost its status and sunk back into
the manorial organization, but because the manor always was
much larger, both in area and value, than the borough. The

20 MISCELLANY

borough, as such, was never anything but one element in the
manor. It is likely also that he was technically correct in
maintaining that there was a breach of continuity, of institu-
tional continuity, between the borough created in 1207 and
the borough created in 1626; but that was because the town
had so completely outgrown the medieval borough that there
was no point in resurrecting Maurice Paynel’s charter in the
reign of King Charles I. Leeds grew up, in the later Middle
Ages, as an industrial rather than a commercial centre, and its
industries did not need the spectacular liberties claimed by
merchants and artisans in the great chartered boroughs. The
thirteenth-century borough, since the liberties on which it was
founded were largely personal and tenurial, gradually, over
the centuries, ceased to differentiate itself from the manor,
as the personal and tenurial condition of the manorial tenants
at large was levelled up to that of the burgesses. This process,
in the present state of our knowledge, is only a hypothesis,
and the demonstration of it will not be possible until the long,
continuous run of reeves’ accounts belonging to the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries has been studied. But the evidence
that we have been considering of the growth of industry and
local trade during the fourteenth century does show the real
significance of Maurice Paynel’s charter in the history of Leeds.
It was the first step: it provided the opportunity which a small
island of freedom in a sea of manorialism might afford at a
time when even such modest liberties as it gave could make a
great deal of difference; and, if progress was slow, it was at
least such that when the great drift of industry from the older
urban centres into the countryside began in the fifteenth
century, Leeds was ready to take its share in the inheritance
of York, and much besides; and from that moment the future
greatness of the town was assured.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

1. KIRKSTALL ABBEY. On the Cistercians in general, see particularly D.
Knowles, The Monastic Ordey in England (1940). The chief documents relating
to the abbey are printed in W. T. Lancaster and W. P. Baildon. The Coucher
Book of the Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstall (Publications of the Thoresby Society,
VIII, 1904), J. Taylor, The Kirkstall Abbey Chronicles (Ibid., XLII, 1952) and
E. K. Clark, The Foundation of Kirkstall Abbey (Ibid., IV, 1895, pp. 1609-208).
The architectural importance of Kirkstall is well brought out in W. H. St. John
Hope and J. Bilson, Architectural Description of Kirkstall Abbey (Ibid., XVI,
1907, J. Bilson, ‘The Architecture of the Cistercians’, Archaeological Journal,
LXVI (1909), pp. 185-280 and T. S. R. Boase, English Art, rroo-1216 (1953), ‘chr.

MEDIEVAL LEEDS: THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH 21

V. Reports of recent excavations will be found in D. E. Owen and others,
Kivkstall Abbey Excavations, 1950-1954 (Publications of the Thoresby Society,
XLII, 1955). A useful guide-book, with ground-plan and illustrations, is published
by the Leeds City Museums.

2. THE PARISH CHURCH. The standard histories are those of R. W. Moore,
A History of the Parish Church of Leeds (1877) and J. Rusby, St. Peter's at Leeds
(1896); and, of the many guide-books, those by E. Kitson Clark, A History and
Description of Saint Peter’s Church at Leeds [1931] and R. J. A. Bunnett, Leeds
Parish Church of St. Peter [1952] may be specially mentioned. The architectural
significance of Dr Hook’s church is shown in G. W. O. Addleshaw and F. Etchells,
The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship (1948), especially pp. 209-219.
Thoresby’s description of the old church will be found in his Ducatus Leodiensis
(3715), pp. 38 ff. and in Whitaker’s edition (1816), pp. 39 ff. There is a fine
collection of water-colours by John N. Rhodes, showing a number of different
views of the old church, in the Leeds Reference Library. On the crosses and
the history of the church before the Norman Conquest, see W. G. Collingwood,
‘The Early Crosses of Leeds’, Publications of the Thoresby Society, XXII (1915),
pp. 267-338. Many documents relating to the establishment of the vicarage are
printed in C. T. Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters, VI, The Paynel Fee (1939);
for its later history, see Thoresby’s Vicaria Leodiensits (1724).

38. THE MEDIEVAL BOROUGH. The documents upon which, the foregoing
paper is based will be found in Le Patourel, Documents relating to the Manor
and Borough of Leeds, 1066-1400 (Publications of the Thoresby Society, XLV,
1957). Hamilton Thompson’s essay on ‘The Charters of Leeds’, is contained in
the Handbook of the Old Leeds Exhibition (1926), pp. 28 ff., and Mr Woledge’s.
valuable paper, ‘The Medieval Borough of Leeds’, in Publications of the Thoresby
Society, XXXVITI (1945), pp. 288-309. I owe the reference to the enquiry of 1399
to the kindness of Professor Carus-Wilson.

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL

Its owners and occupants

By J.) SPRILELES

IN THE TIME of the first Abbot Alexander there were two
granges (Moor Grange and Bar Grange) neighbouring the
Abbey. ‘The offices of the granges the Abbot arranged himself
and ordained everything both inside and out with wisdom. So
diligently did he guard the ample woods that from them he
took no material for building, but brought all together from
other sources.’ So reads the account by Hugh de Kirkstall in
his ‘Foundation of Kirkstall Abbey’, written c. 1207.*

New Grange, later called Kirkstall Grange and now The
Grange, was built on land granted to Kirkstall Abbey by
William le Peitevin de Haddingeleia a few years after the monks
settled at Kirkstall.’ It is stated in an old monastic manuscript
in possession of John Hanson of Woodhouse in Dodsworth’s
time that the four carucates of land in West Headingley granted
by William le Peitevin comprised the lands which became
known as New Grange, Moor Grange and Burley Grange.®

As the lands granted by William le Peitevin to the Abbey
of Kirkstall were already within the parish of Leeds they were
subject to the payment of tithe to the Priory of Holy Trinity,
York, granted to them by Ralph Paganel c. rogo-1100.* Soon
after the monks had settled at Kirkstall the Abbot agreed to
pay 20 shillings annually to the Priory in respect of these and
other lands acquired by the monks.’ This payment continued
to be made until the dissolution of the monasteries, when the
endowments of Holy Trinity were transferred to Christ Church,
Oxford, which continued to receive the rent-charge payable
out of the Headingley lands until 22 November, 1909, when
the rent-charge was commuted under the Tithe Acts of 1836-91
for the sum of £524. gs. 7d.

The next reference to New Grange comes from a Survey

* Publications of the Thoresby Society, IV (1895), 18t.

* Ibid., VIII (1904), 57, 59.

° Ibid., 59n

* Early Vorkshive Charters, VI, 66.
* Ibid., Ill, 237-8.

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL 23

of lands of dissolved religious houses in Yorkshire made by
Henry VIII in 1539-40. Under the heading of demesne lands
in Kirkstall we read ‘Farms of the site of the monastery of
Kyrkstall and demesne lands with two corn mills, granges
called Newgraunge and Cukrige, lands in Bramley and
Heddingley, a fulling mill, lands in Westheddingley and
Capstone, two ‘‘smethes’’ called Whettwoode and Hesyl-
well. ..’°

When Henry VIII leased the site of Kirkstall monastery to
Robert Pakeman of the Household in 1541 the grant included

‘two watermills for grain within the said site . . . a grange
called Newgrange and a close of pasture adjacent called Oxe
more. . . all in the parish of Leeds’.’

Edward VI granted the Abbey lands to Archbishop Thomas
Cranmer, but they passed again to the Crown on the attainder
of the Archbishop by Queen Mary. In 1559 Thomas Cranmer,
son of the Archbishop, received a grant of all the Crown’s
interest in the manor of Kirkstall from Queen Elizabeth I.*

Some time during the next twenty years when the ancient
abbey lands were passing into the possession of local West
Riding families, both Bar Grange and New Grange came into
the hands of the Foxcroft family, their name appearing in the
records of Halifax as landowners in and around that district.
George Foxcroft, son of Thomas Foxcroft of Kebroyd,
acquired Bar Grange, which, in 1560, he settled on his brother
John of Soyland and his heirs.

An early Leeds record of this family is in the register of Leeds
Parish Church where it is stated that Elizabeth, daughter of
Thomas Foxcroft, who was born at New Grange, was baptised
on 2 February, 1575. It is surmised that this Elizabeth became
the wife of John Harrison, the Leeds benefactor. Thomas was
the eldest son and heir of James and Elizabeth (née Woodhead)
Foxcroft of Kebroyd, and a nephew of George Foxcroft of
Bar Grange. He married Joana, the widow of John Mawde
and daughter of Thomas Cliffe of Skircoat, shortly after 23
May, 1563, when in the marriage settlement she is described
as “soon to be his wife.’

The other children of Thomas and Joana Foxcroft were
James, Sara, Thomas, Richard, Judith and Isacke, each being

° Yorkshive Archaeological Society, MD 266.
7 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1547-8, 105.
* [bid., 1558-60, 417.

24 MISCELLANY

mentioned separately in his will. His wife had predeceased him,
dying in 1595. He was buried 20 March, 1596, according to
his desire, in the Parish Church of Leeds. He bequeathed to
his daughter Elizabeth six score pounds, and to his son James
six score pounds, and appointed them executors of his will;
to Sara, wife of Lawrence Wayd, £40; to Thomas, £20; to
Richard, £20 and ‘two bedde with all things thereunto belong-
ing which are in the parlour wherein he lyeth and for either
bed two paire of sheets’; to his daughter Judith, wife of
Anthony Wade, one silver tun; to his son Isacke, ‘all the
sealing and all the glasse in the windowes which are in and
about the house in Newgrainge and one iron bound chist,
theis being witnesses, George Foxcroft and Isacke Foxcroft.’
Isaac Foxcroft, the eldest son of Thomas, was probably born
at New Grange, but the entry of his baptism at Leeds Parish
Church would be in the lost register, as the baptismal records
do not commence until 1571.

Judith Foxcroft, daughter of Thomas Foxcroft of New
Grange, married Anthony Wade of King Cross, Halifax, at
Leeds Parish Church on 3 November, 1590. He purchased New
Grange from Isaac Foxcroft. He died 25 June, 1616, his will
dated 24 May, 1616, being proved in December the same year.
The Foxcroft and the Wade families can be traced in Halifax
from the fifteenth century, and marriages took place between
the two families. The eldest branch of the Wades lived at
Quickstavers, Halifax, and much rivalry appears to have
existed between the two families during the sixteenth century
concerning the acquisition of land in the Halifax area, and a
feud which lasted two generations resulted in the murder of
a Samuel Wade c. 1590 by one of the Foxcrofts of Kebroyd.

Benjamin Wade, the son of Anthony, married Edith,
a daughter of John Shann of Leeds; she was baptised at Leeds
Parish Church 30 November, 1595, and was buried at Heading-
ley 2 January, 1652. He is described as a merchant. Benjamin
Wade was 35 years old when he rebuilt New Grange in 1626,
and Thoresby informs us that he caused inscriptions to be
engraved over the front and south doors of the house. That
over the front reads, ‘Except the Lord build the house, Thy
labour is vain that builds it: it is the Lord that keeps thee
going out and in. B.W. 1626.’ Over the south door where the
poor received their alms was engraved ‘If thou shalt find a
house built to thy mind without thy cost, Serve thou the more

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL 25

God and the poor, my labour is not lost.’ This inscription
savours of George Herbert, and can be seen above the back
door, the stone and engraving having been renewed during
the nineteenth century, no doubt when the alterations were
made by the Beckett family.

On the outside of Bemerton parsonage near Salisbury is
the following inscription : —

‘If thou chance for to find, A new house to thy mind,
And built without thy cost,

Be good to the poor, As God gives thee store
And then my labour’s not lost.’

George Herbert was incumbent of Bemerton 1630-1633.°
Benjamin Wade was one of the nine men who acquired an
interest in the manor of Leeds, thus becoming one of the lords
of the manor. He served as first Alderman of Leeds in 1632
and Mayor of Leeds in 1663. Thoresby writes, ‘This family
at New Grange was so remarkable in the service of King
Charles I that they sold £500 per annum to serve those
occasions.’ No doubt Benjamin Wade, like other of his kins-
men, found it unpopular to be an ardent royalist in those
politically difficult days. He was one of the executors of the
will of John Harrison, in which Benjamin Wade, Robert
Hitch and Richard Lodge are described as ‘my well beloved
friends’. He gave £200 to Headingley Chapel, living to the
ripe age of 81 years, dying in 1671. Benjamin Wade and his
wife had no children. It seems that the rivalry between the
families of Foxcroft and Wade still persisted in the seven-
teenth century, as Daniel Foxcroft built Weetwood Hall in
1625 and Benjamin Wade rebuilt New Grange in 1626.
Anthony Wade, the nephew of Benjamin, was the son of
John Wade and Mary Waterhouse of King Cross, Halifax,
and was born in 1634. He married Mary, the daughter of John
Moore, of Greenhead, Lancashire, and inherited New Grange
from his uncle. He became Mayor of Leeds in 1676, and died
in 1683 at the early age of 47 years. Their son, Benjamin
Wade of New Grange, caused to be erected in Headingley
Church in 1694 a stately monument of “white marble delicately
polished’ to the pious memory of his ancestors. Dean Malden,
in his book on Headingley Church, mentions this monument
° Heath, F. R., Wiltshive (The little guides, 1949), 50. The works of George

Herbert ed. F. E. Hutchinson, Oxford (1941), 207. The lines, headed ‘To my
successor’ were printed in Walton’s Lives, 1670.

26 MISCELLANY

to the memory of Benjamin and Anthony Wade, which dis-
appeared when one of the two churches was demolished either
in 1837 or 1886. He states that ‘it does not say much for our
sense of gratitude that it was allowed to disappear.’ Dean
Malden may have assumed the white marble monument to
be a mural tablet, but the inscription stated that Benjamin
Wade ‘erected this tomb.’

This Benjamin Wade succeeded to New Grange after the
death of his father Alderman Anthony Wade in 1683. He
married Anne Calverley, the daughter of Walter Calverley,
of Calverley, and had five sons and three daughters. Thoresby
states that he inherited Kepstorn, formerly belonging to the
Abbey. He was a Justice of the Peace for the West Riding.
The first four sons died young, the fourth son, a Captain in
the army, dying in Brussels in November, 1709; their fifth
son was Walter, who rebuilt New Grange in 1752. He served
as Mayor of Leeds in 1757, taking the place of William Denison
who was stated to have absented himself from his duties as
Mayor. He married Beatrix Killingbeck, daughter of Benjamin
Killingbeck of Allerton Grange. He gave a Communion flagon
and a large paten to the church of Headingley in 1756. These
fine pieces of plate are still in the church. Walter and Beatrix
Wade had two children, the first, Benjamin, who died in
infancy, and the second, Walter, who was born 6 October,
1722, and, after the death of his father, inherited New Grange.

The house built by Walter Wade in 1752 is at the rear of
the present house, and, in the main, constitutes the domestic
quarters of the college hostel for men students. Apparently,
the tablet over the door (since renewed) was above the lintel
of the original south door. The Beckett family, very wisely,
made the front of the house to face south. During the early
years of the nineteenth century structural alterations were
made and the house much enlarged, as there is a distinct join-
ing at the west side showing the extension to the old portion.
There appears to have been a second extension to the south of
about 24 feet, which may have been added by William Beckett
after he bought the house and estate in 1834, as the front
facade has the coat of arms of Beckett above the centre window
under the apex of the eaves. The bay windows are a later
extension, both at the south and east sides of the house, and
appear to have been added about 1858, as the commemorative
archway of stone, built about 500 yards from the house west-

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL 27

ward, bears similar chisel marks made by the masons when
dressing the stone. At the rear of the building the masonry
shows a distinct change of stone in the addition of two storeys,
which gives a balanced aspect, otherwise this part of the house
would have appeared out of proportion to the main building.
At the time the bays were added a building of one storey was
erected to the west side adjoining the frontage. The unpreten-
tious doorway is part of the 1858 addition forming an enclosed
porch which is flanked by four classical pillars, two each side
placed on pedestals, the pillars having volute capitals. The
balustrades over the door and windows were part of the altera-
tion made in 1858. The archway was erected to commemorate
the visit to Leeds by Queen Victoria when she opened the new
Town Hall. It stands on a stone base, the front having four
classical columns with volute capitals like those at the doorway
of the Grange. The masonry above the entablature rises to
an apex, whilst the face of the entablature is formed of orna-
mental and lettered tiles which are in a perfect state of
preservation. The inscription reads: “Io commemorate the
visit of Queen Victoria for the inauguration of the Town Hall
to ieeeds. 7 September, 2S58-’

Walter Wade, the son of Walter, born in 1722, married
Ann Allanson, the daughter of Robert Allanson of the Royd,
near Halifax, and had seven children, Walter and Robert dying
when young. Their daughter Ann, born in 1756, eventually
married Colonel Thomas Lloyd of the Regiment of Leeds
Volunteers. Benjamin was born in 1759 and married Arabella,
the daughter of William Martin, Captain in the Royal Navy.
Benjamin died in 1792. Their son, William, was born in 1762;
he married Henrietta, the daughter of Sir John Smith, bart.,
of Newland Park. Thompson Wade was born in 1765 and
died at the age of 63 in 1828. Their father Walter Wade died
of a bilious fever in 1771 at the age of 49, his wife Ann surviv-
ing him until 7 January, 1809. Their son Benjamin apparently
managed the New Grange estate; he and his wife Arabella
lost their first five children at an early age. Their names were
George, Anne, Harriet, Elizabeth and Arabella. Their last two
daughters, Frances and Mary Ann, were born in 1787 and
1789 respectively, and both were living in the second decade
of the nineteenth century. Benjamin Wade had been a Captain
in the 2nd Battalon West Yorkshire Militia, and one of the
Common Council of the borough of Leeds.

28 MISCELLANY

Mrs Walter Wade had continued residing at New Grange
after the death of her husband in 1771, but three years after
the death of her son Benjamin, 1795, there was an auction
sale of Mrs Wade’s furniture at New Grange; this sale brought
to an end the occupation of New Grange by the Wade family.
The auction took place on Wednesday, 4 November, 1795,
and a description of the household furniture appeared in the
Leeds Intelligencer of 6 October. There were bedsteads with
damask, chintz and other hangings; window curtains and chair
covers to suit; excellent feather beds, ‘mattrasses’, blankets
and quilts; handsome mahogany chairs, tables, chest of
drawers and ‘sophas’; floor, staircase and bedside carpets;
two mahogany cellarets, pier and dressing glasses, an eight-
day clock, several handsome prints, neat painted chairs; china
and glass; a washing machine, kitchen furniture, brewing
vessels and a variety of other effects. On 14 January, 1800,
Mrs Wade ‘of Weetwood, relict of the late Walter Wade,
Esquire, of New Grange’ was buried at Headingley, so it would
appear that she sold her excess furniture before moving to her
new and smaller abode at Weetwood.

At the close of the eighteenth century New Grange appears
to have been let on lease, as the house was tenanted by Samuel
Buck, the Recorder of Leeds from 1776 to 1806. Apparently
he left the house in 1804 for Park Hill, near Doncaster, where
he died on 22 July, 1806. The obituary notice in the Leeds
Intelligencer of 26 July mentions that he died ‘Tuesday last,
of the gout of the stomach’. He was ‘thirty years Recorder of
this Borough, the duties of which office he discharged with
distinguished ability, firmness and uprightness.’ He was a
barrister-at-law of Lincoln’s Inn and was buried at Rotherham.
In Rotherham church on the north side of the chancel there
is a tablet by Flaxman recording his death. His father, William
Buck, was lord of the manor of Ulley, near Rotherham, dying
in 1747; his daughter Anne married at Leeds Sir Francis
Lindley Wood, bart., in 1798, and Catherine married, in 1811,
the Reverend Alexander Cook, Rector of Warmsworth and
Vicar of Arksey. The two daughters were co-heiresses to the
Ulley manor.

In 1804 John Marshall, a linen merchant of Leeds became
tenant occupier of New Grange, where he lived until 1818,
renting the property from the Wade family. From 1804 to 1810
he paid £500 per year rent and from 1810 to 1818 he paid

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL 29

£200 per year. There is no apparent reason for the reduction
other than the assumption that he relinquished certain attached
farm lands. We do know from his accounts that in 1805-6 he
had a farm at New Grange on which he had sheep and cattle.
In 1815 he purchased Hallsteads, a very large estate in Cumber-
land, and travelled often to New Grange, more frequently in
the autumn.*’ As he was in possession of New Grange after
the battle of Waterloo it is possible that it was he who directed
that trees should be planted to represent the position of troops
at the scene of the famous battle.

This John Marshall, born 1765, was a Leeds man, his father
being described as a shopkeeper in Briggate, whilst his grand-
father, John Marshall, resided at Low Hall, Nether Yeadon;
this estate was sold by Jeremiah Marshall in 1650 to William
Sale who held the estate for a short period, selling it back to
Mr Marshall. The Marshalls are frequently mentioned in
Yeadon and Rawdon history, being the oldest family in those
parts. John Marshall (of New Grange) was sent by his father
to Darlington to learn the manufacture of linen, and com-
menced business at Scotland Mill on Adel Beck-in 1788, his
partners being Samuel Fenton, of Leeds, and Ralph Deartone,
of Knaresborough. It was to Scotland Mill that Matthew Murray
went for a job as engineer after walking from Stockton to
Leeds, and here he improved the machinery, ultimately becom-
ing manager, remaining there six years; apparently Mr
Marshall knew a good man when he engaged Matthew Murray,
the inventor and engineer. In 1791 John Marshall removed
his business to Water Lane Mill in Holbeck. He was a founder
member of the Leeds Philosophical Society in 1818 along with
Benjamin Gott, and the first Vice-President of the Leeds
Mechanics Institute in 1824. So that the children of his work-
people should receive some education, he established schools
in the neighbourhood of his works, thus satisfying a much
required need in those days. He was one of the founders of
London University and served for many years on its Council.
A Whig in politics, he became Liberal M.P. for Leeds in 1826.
In 1818 John Marshall paid £7,500 for what he calls “my
house’ in Headingley and he spent £2,500 adding the west
end to the house. He bought this house from Mr Bischoff;
presumably it was Headingley House (now demolished) which
stood in Kirkstall Lane, as his son, James Garth Marshall,

‘Information from the Marshall Papers supplied by Mr W. G. Rimmer.

30 MISCELLANY

was living there in 1847, and Arthur Marshall, F.G.S., in
1872-3. The Directory of 1873 states that James Marshall lived
at Headingley Lodge, and Henry Cowper Marshall at Weet-
wood Hall.

John Marshall’s wife was Jane Pollard, the daughter of
William Pollard, of Halifax. She was a school friend of Dorothy
Wordsworth, and was living at New Grange when Dorothy
and her brother William paid them a visit in 1807. Dorothy
Wordsworth’s mother had died when she was but six years
old, and the young child was brought up by her mother’s
cousin, Mrs Rawson, of Halifax, and there she went to school,
and lived with her aunt until she was about Ig years of age.
After Dorothy Wordsworth left Halifax, she often returned
for short visits, and it was during one of these visits that she
and her brother William and his family came to New Grange
to stay with Mr and Mrs Marshall. Dorothy, when writing to
a friend, refers to this particular visit. It is somewhat unfortun-
ate that the letter is chiefly concerned about their departure
rather than their stay, but we are given a glimpse. ‘We stayed
a fortnight at Halifax. Mrs Rawson accompanied us to New
Grange where we stayed from Friday to Monday. It is a cheerful
place and the Abbey — how beautiful.’** Departing from New
Grange, Mary, Sara, Molly and the children went in a post-
chaise to Kendal. “William and Mr Marshall set out on horse-
back and I went with Mrs Rawson, Mrs Marshall and one of
her sisters in their carriage to Otley and Bolton Abbey. The
Abbey stands in the most beautiful valley that was ever seen.
The river is greatly inferior to Kirkstall but the situation
infinitely more beautiful — a retired, woody winding valley
with steep banks and rocky scars — no manufactures — no
horrible forges and yet the forge near Kirkstall has often grand
effects. We parted from our friends six miles from Burnsall
where we were to lodge. We had a delightful walk to Burnsall
and there we were received at the little inn with that true
welcoming you only meet with in lonely places. We had an
hour’s very interesting conversation with the landlord, a very
intelligent man.’

In 1822 New Grange is described as the seat of Thomas
Benyon. He was a flax spinner and was a partner of John
Marshall in the early years of the business. In 1796 the Leeds

“ The letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth : the middle years. Ed. by
E. de Selincourt (1937), I, 137.

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL 31

Intelligencer refers to a fire at Marshall and Benyon’s Mill.
A further misfortune befell the Benyon family in 1861 when
the firm of Benyon and Co. failed; their creditors were paid
a composition of Ios. in the £, which was made possible by
the family yielding money from their private resources. A
memorial brass in Headingley Church records the deaths of
Thomas Benyon on 22 November, 1833, and of Jane his wife,
who predeceased him, 16 June, 1828.

The Leeds Directory of 1834 mentions William Beckett,
banker, of New Grange, and those of 1839 and 1861 refer
to the house as Kirkstall Grange. An examination of the
structure gives the impression that William Beckett made addi-
tions and alterations to the house soon after he became occupant
and owner. The coat of arms of Beckett is above the front
door which, if tinctured, would be gules, a fesse erminois
between three boars’ heads couped, with the motto Prodesse
civibus, William Beckett was born in 1784 and was the fifth
son and seventh child of Sir John Beckett who was created a
baronet in 1813; he came to Leeds from Barnsley and made
his home at Gledhow. Sir John died in 1826 aged 84 years.
He was succeeded by his son Sir John Beckett, M.P., who
died in 1847 aged 72, his brother Thomas succeeding to the
baronetcy. Thomas bought Somerby Park, Gainsborough in
Lincolnshire, dying in 1872 at the age of 93. He had no sons
to succeed to the title. William Beckett of Kirkstall Grange was
born at Mount Pleasant in 1784, and married Frances Adelina
Ingram of Temple Newsam; they had one daughter only. He
became M.P. for Leeds in 1841 and for Ripon in 1852 and
died at Brighton 26 January, 1863, aged 78 years, his wife
to have the enjoyment of Kirkstall Grange for life. He left
the sum of £700,000. A monument, 16 feet high, was erected
in Leeds Parish Church in 1868 to commemorate his charitable
works, being placed there by Mrs Beckett who bore the expense.
It stands within the communion rails against the east wall
on the south side. They had no children to inherit the family
fortune and estate. After the death of Sir Thomas in 1863,
Edmund Denison succeeded to the baronetcy, assuming the
surname Beckett, being the fourth baronet. He made Doncas-
ter his home and died there at the age of 88, on 29 May, 1870;
his wife had died two months earlier (in March) aged 70.

The Becketts were bankers; Beckett’s Bank in Park Row
was opened 3 June, 1867, and succeeded the ‘Old Bank’ in

32 MISCELLANY

Briggate. The present Westminster Bank still retains the titles
‘Beckett’ and ‘Old Bank’. St Chad’s Church, Far Headingley,
was built by Mr Edmund Beckett and his son Mr Edmund
Beckett Denison, Q.C., the former endowing the church.

Mr Edmund Beckett became known as the Great Northern
Railway king, whilst his son, born in 1816, who became Lord
Grimthorpe, was the most ingenious of the Beckett family.
He was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge,
being called to the Bar in 1841; he created an enviable practice
in the restricted but lucrative worlds of the Parliamentary
Bar and ecclesiastical law in which he made a fortune; he also
inherited a fortune, and at his death in 1905 left £2,000,000.
When a lawyer he was known as Edmund Beckett Denison,
but after becoming a baronet he dropped the name Denison,
and in 1886 was created a peer. He is remembered by his
interest in clocks and became an expert horologist, and many
church clocks and public clocks have been fitted with the Grim-
thorpe escapement chime invented by him.

In the November of 1872 the clock in the tower of St Chad’s
Church, which had been constructed from plans made by
Edmund Beckett Denison, was set going. The clock has an
external dial of six feet six inches in diameter and was the
only public clock in Leeds with full Cambridge and West-
minster chimes, The clock in the tower of St Michael’s Church,
Headingley, also has mechanism invented by Lord Grimthorpe,
having the escapement known as ‘the double three legged
gravity’, the most accurate of all made for time-keeping. It
was made by Potts and Sons of Leeds, being set going in
December, 1890, and was guaranteed to keep time to within
six seconds per month. He also advised on the clock for the
Houses of Parliament, recommending the marine chronometer
maker, E. J. Dent, to be engaged as the maker. This brought
a storm of protest from the best of English clock makers.
The first ‘Big Ben’ was cast on his recommendation by a firm
of founders near Stockton-on-Tees. It travelled by water to
London and was drawn by sixteen white horses over West-
minster Bridge. But it cracked. The bell founders, Messrs.
Mears and Stainbank, made the next, but it also cracked and
had to be turned.

Lord Grimthorpe was interested in St Alban’s Abbey, and
having a mind to engage in architecture, resolved to carry out
certain alterations despite protests from William Morris and

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL ae

from eminent architects of the day. Hence the west front and
transept ends were altered to the designs of Grimthorpe. He
wished to try his skill at Peterborough Cathedral but was out-
witted by Bishop Magee, and so the glorious Early English
work was saved from his spoilation. A mechanic he may have
been, but he was not an artist. When he was turned sixty
years of age he took up homoeopathy with a view to attacking
the medical profession. He disliked High Churchmen, and
when he became a peer made his dishke known to the High
Church peers. But he was a remarkable man and saw almost
ninety years before he died.

St Chad’s Church was the third church in Leeds to be erected
by the Beckett family and was consecrated January, 1868.
Its plan does not follow the usual orientation of churches, east
and west, but was planned parallel to the main Otley Road,
and is without doubt a most imposing structure. It cost £15,000
to build. An extended chancel has been added and the organ
chamber enlarged. The other churches were Meanwood Church
and St Stephen’s, Kirkstall.

Kirkstall Grange was occupied by William Ernest Beckett,
M.P., certainly in 1888 and his name appears as occupier in
1903, and he is styled as Borough Treasurer in 1893, His pre-
decessor as Borough Treasurer was William Beckett Denison,
M.P., who lived at Nun Appleton. The last of the Beckett
family to occupy Kirkstall Grange was (presumably) the Hon.
William Gervase Beckett, second son of William, the second
baron Grimthorpe, and brother to the late Hon. Rupert Beckett.
He was born in 1866 and was living at Kirkstall Grange in
1908, having a London home also. All his children were born
in Leeds, the late Dr Octavius Croft, the Leeds surgeon and
gynaecologist, being in attendance upon Mrs Beckett. Dr
Croft often recalled the journeys to the Grange and in particular
those during the night, when the carriage was sent to his home,
the hoofs of the horses and the rumbling of the wheels break-
ing the silence of the night, especially in the drive through the
Park from Otley Road to the house, when all nature was still,
and he the lonely passenger in the coach.

During the early years of the twentieth century the Beckett
family resolved to sell Kirkstall Grange and the adjacent land,
and immediately the Leeds Education Committee, under the
authority of the Corporation, sought to purchase most of the
estate. For many years the training of students for the teaching

D

34 MISCELLANY

profession had been most inadequate, and Leeds had little
accommodation where the intending student could be trained.
There were colleges founded by the church where the training
of teachers took place, but these were few in number and the
nearest to Leeds was York. There was a college for women at
Bingley. In 1907 the Georgian building in Woodhouse Lane,
which had been the Leeds Girls’ High School and is now the
Harewood Barracks, became a centre for the training of
teachers, two hostels being rented for housing the students,
that for men at St Ann’s Hill and the other for women at Weet-
wood Grange, formerly the home of Sir Arthur Lawson. The
Woodhouse Lane training college was shared by the Leeds
School of Music, and a two manual organ was installed for the
teaching of that instrument to organ students, the School of
Music having been taken over by the Education Committee
about 1906, before which it was part of the Leeds Boys’ Modern
School and the Girls’ Modern School in the Leeds Institute
building. The late Dr Percy Scholes, author of the Oxford
Companion to Music, became Registrar and a tutor in
theoretical subjects. The School of Music became defunct after
four years under the Leeds Education Committee. The organ,
built by Messrs. Binns of Bramley, was later transferred to
Beckett Park Training College and placed in the main hall.
The college in Woodhouse Lane closed in 1909. In 1908
negotiations were in progress between Lord Grimthorpe and
the Leeds Education Committee for the acquisition of Kirkstall
Grange and 40 acres of land, with the intent of erecting build-
ings as colleges for the training of teachers, the students to
be resident. The purchase of 35 acres was approved in IgIo,
Lord Grimthorpe making a gift of a further Ig acres known
as Churchwood.

The college buildings and halls of residence rose upon one
of the finest sites in Leeds and were formally declared open
in June, 1913. The old home of the Wade and Beckett families
became first a hostel for women and later a hostel for men.
The name of the house was changed from Kirkstall Grange to
The Grange, by which name it is still known. New Grange,
Kirkstall Grange and the Grange have changed considerably
since those distant monastic days and many personalities have
played their part during hundreds of years. Now it is part of
the City of Leeds Training College and worthy men played
their part in bringing about the new foundation; among them

ee

From the original in the possession of the Thoresby Society.

PLAN OF NEW GRANGE, HEADINGLEY, SURVEYED BY S, WILKINSON OF DARLINGTON, 1766.

NEW GRANGE, KIRKSTALL 35

was Alderman Fred Kinder, a staunch Liberal, lawyer and
wool merchant, who was chiefly responsible during the negotia-
tions and purchase of the house and estate from Lord Grim-
thorpe. James Graham, the Director of Education in Leeds,
and Walter Parsons, the first Principal, were prominent during
the transaction, both receiving academic distinction from the
University of Leeds, the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
(honoris causa) being conferred upon each in 1927 and 1938
respectively.

The first World War of 1914-18 changed the use of the
newly erected college buildings and they became known as
the 2nd Northern General Hospital, being admirably suited
and sited for the purpose for which they were converted, and
were so used until 1926, when the new Pensions Hospital at
Chapeltown was built, and they gradually returned to the pur-
pose for which they were erected.

The Grange, amidst pleasant surroundings, is still used by
the college as a hostel for men students, and, like New Grange
of monastic days, is an integral part of an institution of
learning.

A (CHECKLIST. OF THE..GORRESPONDENGE
OP RALPH THORESBY

By HAROLD W. JONES

[Epiror1aL Note: In a previous publication! it was suggested that
tae Society should sponsor the publication of a definitive edition of
Ralph Thoresby’s correspondence and diaries. Towards this end, Dr
H. W. Jones has prepared a Table of the extant correspondence of
Choresby, collected from printed and manuscript sources, a typescript
copy of which has been deposited at the Library of the Yorkshire
Archaeological Society, which possesses many volumes of Thoresby’s
letters and diaries. The Table and Indexes run to over a hundred
pages, listing close on 3,000 items. It has not been considered practicable
at present to publish the Table in extenso, but we give here extracts
irom Dr Jones’s Introduction, and an alphabetical list of correspond-
ents. i Fie. Table, which may ‘be: consulted at the: Library \or the
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, includes name of correspondent,
place of origin, date of letters, location of manuscript and where
printed. |

A CHECKLIST OF THE complete correspondence of Ralph
Thoresby, which must represent one of the finest collections
of early eighteenth-century letters in existence, would appear
to be long overdue. The numerical strength of the series (the
word ‘collection’ would be misleading, as the letters are now
widely dispersed) compares well with those of such renowned
correspondents as Voltaire, Horace Walpole, Lord Chester-
field and Madame de Sévigné; the literary quality, on occasion
distinguished, varies considerably — as may be expected in
a collection of nearly 3,000 items — from the notable efforts
of many of the leading men of the times, such as Evelyn,
Burnet, Toland, Bishop Nicolson and Dr Richard Richardson,
to the less distinguished family letters and those from
Thoresby’s friends in lower stations in life: and even here
lack of literary brilliance is often more than compensated for
by the immense wealth and variety of the subjects dealt with
— antiquities, topography, history in all its branches, and
even etymology. From the point of view of the social historian,
however, the whole series is of interest not only to the citizens

Thoresby Society Publications, XLI (1954), 98.

RALPH THORESBY'S CORRESPONDENCE a7

of Leeds but also to a wider public. It is with this aim in mind
that the present list of correspondents is presented; only when
the whole correspondence is available in print can its true
worth be assessed. The assignment of some letters to authors
can be only provisional, and though every effort has been
made to ensure accuracy, some inevitable errors await correc-
tion at a later stage.

The extant letters start, for practical purposes, in 1679 when
Thoresby was twenty-one, and continue until 1725, the year
of his death: as far as can be ascertained at present (and the
view is advanced with all caution) a fairly high percentage
appears to have survived, though some years are better repre-
sented than others and some very sparsely indeed. The material
falls into three obvious classes: (i) letters extant in print only,
or where the manuscripts are yet untraced; (ii) letters extant
both in print and in traced manuscripts; and (ili) those extant
in manuscript only. Of the letters recorded, of which some
thousand are here listed for the first time, about eight per
cent belong to class (i), the overall average of letters preserved
by Thoresby being tentatively put at about six per month;
about forty-two per cent to class (ii), and the remainder,
roughly half the complete extant correspondence, to class (iii).

Location of manuscript sources is as follows: The Bodleian
Library, Cambridge University Library, The British Museum
Library (collections Stowe, Sloane, Lansdowne, Cole and
Additional), The Library of the College of Arms, The National
Library of Scotland, The Royal Society, City of Leeds Library,
Library of Leeds Grammar School, The University of Leeds
(Brotherton Library), The Library of the Yorkshire Archae-
ological Society, York Minster Library, The Thoresby Society’s
Library, the University College of the West Indies and those
letters still in private hands. Full details, together with the
history of the various manuscripts, may be seen in the Table.

The printed sources are as follows: —

Atkinson, D. H., Ralph Thoresby the Topographer : his town and times. 2 vols.
1885-7.

Cudworth, William, The life and correspondence of Abraham Sharp. 1889.

Hearne, T., Remarks and collections of Thomas Hearne. Ed. by C. E. Doble.
Vols. 1-8. (Oxford Historical Society Publications, 2, 7, 13, 34, 42, 43, 48, 50).
1885-1907.

Heywood, Oliver, The whole works of the Rev. O. Heywood. Vol. 1. 1827.

Hunter, Joseph, Diary of Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S., 1677-1724. 2 vols. 1830.

Letters of eminent men addressed to Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S. 2 vols. 1832.

Nichols, John, Illustrations of the literary history of the eighteenth century,
8 vols. 1817-58.

38 MISCELLANY

Nichols, Literary anecdotes of the eighteenth century. 9 vols. 1812-15.
Nicolson, William, Letters on various subjects, literary, political and ecclesiastical
to and from W. Nicolson . . . illustvated with . . . anecdotes by J. Nichols.

2 vols. 1809.

Ray, John, Philosophical letters between the late learned Mr. Ray and several
of his ingenious correspondents. Ed. by William Derham. 1718.

Royal Society of London, Philosophical Tvansactions. [References given in Tabie.]

—— Philosophical Transactions Abridged. Ed. by Charles Hutton and others.
Vols. iv-vi. 1809.

Smith, W. [Rector of Melsonby], Littevae de ve nummaria. 1729.

Stukeley, W., The family memoirs of the Rev. William Stukeley. Ed. by W. C.
Lukis. Vols. 1 and 3. (Surtees Soc. Publications, 73 and 80). 1882, 1887.

Thoresby, R., Ducatus Leodiensis, 1715. Ed. T. D. Whitaker. 1816.

—— Letters addressed to Ralph Thoresby. Ed. by W. T. Lancaster. (Thoresby

Society Publications, X XI). roar.
Turner, Dawson, Extracts from ihe literary and scientific correspondence of

Richard Richardson, M.D., F.R.S. 1835.

It should be pointed out that some of the letters appear only
in excerpts or in Summaries; and that the printed sources in
some cases duplicate themselves (e.g. Atkinson uses Hunter):
a few later reprints from early printed versions are here
omitted, but are given in the Table, which also includes a
bibliography of books and articles in periodicals on Thoresby
exclusively as a letter-writer.

Alphabetical List of Ralph Thoresby’s Correspondents

Note: Names are standardised as far as possible to seven-
teenth- and eighteenth-century practice. In the manuscripts
the spelling of baptismal and family names varies; neither is
a correspondent’s practice always uniform. Initials and
abbreviations, also common, are expanded without specific
note. Names given in CAPITALS refer to persons included
in the Dictionary of National Biography. Some attempt has
been made at identifying persons; descriptions in the main
are from Hunter, but where there is some account by Lancaster
this is indicated by ‘L’. Descriptions within quotation marks
are Thoresby’s own.

The arabic numeral after each name, indicating the number
of letters passing between Thoresby and that person, may
include some letters from Thoresby. The first figure indicates
total number of letters written exclusive of the Copy-book
letters; the figure following the asterisk (*) indicates the
number of these at present unpublished; roman numerals
indicate the number of letters for each correspondent in the
Copy-book of letters sent (Yorkshire Archaeological Society,

MSE)

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE 39

Alkemaade, Cornelius, Dutch antiquary: *3; i
ANDERSON, JAMES, genealogist, of Edinburgh: *1
ANSTIS, JOHN, Garter King-at-Arms: 6. *2; v
Appleyard, John, servant to Dr THOMAS MANGEY: *1
Archer Sohn 32/72); 1

Armitage, Sir Thomas: 1

Arthington, Cyril: *1

Astley, John, Nonconformist minister at Tadcaster: I; ii
Atkins, Maurice: xvi

Avenant, Joshua: *5

Badwick, Siv Roger: 1

Bagnall, Samuel: 1

BAKER, THOMAS, antiquary, of St John’s College, Cam-
brdee: °O. * 15 vill

Bankes, Bernard: *1

Banks, Robert, antiquary, of Kingston-on-Hull: 4. *2; v

Thomas: I

Barker, Edmund: 1

Barley, John: i

Barlow, Edward: *1

Barstowe, Edmund: i

Barwell, Nath. *z

Baynes, Benjamin, of University College, Oxford: 2

Beale-Hanna: 1. ke.

Bernard, Rev. Thomas: *1

Birtley, john: 1

BISSE, PHILIP, bishop of St David’s: i

Blackburn,’ Anna: *1

BLACKMORE, Sir RICHARD: i

BLAND) Anna, Lady: 1x

oe LIZ ABE TT, ~Hebrician 4) “2

Joseph: 1

Nath. *23

Blijoen, Interim: *1

Bossiter, Alex. i

Boulter, John, philanthropist: 4. *3; vi

Bourchier, John: i

Bownell, “Mrs J’ :-*r

Boymion Sit Griffith: 1. L; iv

By

Boyse, Elkanah: 1

40 MISCELLANY

BOYSE, Rev: JOSEPH: 48, *225 xi

BRADBURY, THOMAS, Congregational minister: 1*
Branling, Ra. *1

BRAY, T., divine: i

BREARCLIFFE (BRIERCLIFFE), JOHN, antiquary: *2
Brenand, W, *1

Bretts, Susan: *1

Brooke, Lord: *1

Samuel: *1

Brown, William: *1

Bryan, ——: 1

BUCK, SAMUEL, eneraver: 1

BURNET, GILBERI, bishop of Salisbury: 221
Butler, Joseph: *xr

CALAMY, EDMUND, Nonconformist writer: 4. *1; ii

Calverley, Sir Walter: *3; i

Calvert, Sarah, possibly widow of THOMAS CALVERT,
Puritan minister at York: *1

CARMARTHEN, PEREGRINE HYDE OSBORNE, mar-
quess of: I

CARLISLE, bishop of, see NICOLSON, W.

Carpenter, — (artist?): 1

Cartwright, Thomas, M.P. 1

Cay, Jabez, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: 29. *20; i. See also
Kay

Chamberlayne, Edward: *1

John, of Petty France, Westminster: 13.) 412 iv

CHARLETT, ARTHUR, of University College, Oxford; 6. *1z

Chilton, —: 1

Chippinedale, John: 1. L.

Chomley, Richard: 4. *2

CHORLEY, JOSIAS, Presbyterian minister: i

CHURCHILL, AWNSHAM, bookseller: 6. *r

Clapham, Thomas, vicar of Bradford: *2

Clarke, Edward, Master at the Leeds Grammar School, after-
wards vicar of Nottingham: 1

George: I
— J. *1
jehns *1

Thomas: *1
Clarkson, Daniel: *r

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE AI

Clayton, William: *2

Clements, Henry: a. L.

POLEINS, ARTHUR, herald: 6. *1; xvi
Conyngham, James: *2

Cooke, William, of Jesus College Cambridge: , 2. L.
Cookson, John: *1

Jeseph..2. *1

Susan: *1

William, ‘merchant’: *13

Copley, sir Godirey, bart., F.R-S, 2

Coppendale, John: *3; i

Corlas, Rev. William, rector of Long Marston: *11
Cox, Bartholomew: *I1; 1

Croft (Ralph, Alderman ?): i

Crompton, Samuel: *7

Cross, Elizabeth: *1

CURLL, EDMUND, bookseller: 2

Paee ROBE], herald: 13. *9; x

DAUBUZ, Rev. CHARLES, divine and writer: 6; *3
DAWES, WILLIAM, archbishop of York: 2
Dawson, Joseph: *7

-——— William: *1

DE LA PRYME, see PRYME

Denison, Robert, alderman of Leeds: *1
Dennis, Robert: *1

DERHAM, Rev. WILLIAM, F.R.S. 2; *1
DERING, HENEAGE, dean of Ripon: 3. *2; ii
Wickinson, John: *3;: Lx

Digge, Symon: i

Disney, Brian, friend of Thoresby: 3. *1z

Jer., master at the Leeds Grammar School: *1
ao wnomas, *3

William: *2

Dockwray, Katherine: 6. *5

Dodgson, John: *2

Downes, —: *1

Downey, Sir Henry: 1

Drake, Francis, vicar of Pontefract: 1

N.i

—— Nathan, vicar of Sheffield: 3. *2

—— —, of Halifax: i

42 MISCELLANY

DRUMMOND, GEORGE, Lord Provost of Edinburgh: *1
Dyneley, Ord; 5

John: 1

— Robert: *1

Edwards, George, engraver: 6. *5

Dr yon, o1 Cambridge: 2. *1, i

Ellis, George: 1

William: *1

Elmhurst, William: *1

Ellyvott, Johnn; *1

ELSTOB, ELIZABETH, Anglo-Saxon scholar: 5; ti
William: 1

Elston, Thomas: *1

PVELYN, JON, “dianst: 6, “2

BAIKPAX, Barwick: 14.711

—— BRIAN; 5. *2
HENRY: 2. *r
—— ROBERT: ii

Thomas: ) *a. 1

Fall, James: *3

Fane, John, 7th earl of Westmorland: i

Fawks, Francis; 1

Fenton, Miss A. *1

Edward: *1

Fern, Robert, Nonconformist minister in Derbyshire: *1

errand, Thomas: *1

Field, john: *1

Fleming, Robert, Scottish minister: *1

FOLEY (FOLLIE), SAMUEL, M.A., of the Dublin Society
(perhaps Jollie or Tottie): *2

Forbes: see Foulis

Ford, [.4

Foster, Thomas (illiterate): *z

Fothergill, Marmaduke: 3; ii

Foulis (perhaps FORBES), Daniel: *1; i

FOUNTAINE, Sir ANDREW: *rz

FOWLER, Edward, bishop of Gloucester: iii

Fos, nomas. “1

Foxcroft, Samuel: *r1

Francis, William: *2

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE 43

Frank, Robert, M.P.1

Frankland (Franklin), Frances: 5. *4
Margaret: *1

——R. i

— Richard: 4

—, Jun. I

Froggott, John: 1. L

GALE, Charles: *1r
a istopner: *y

m —— MILES: *1

eee 7 Ts xii

—— SAMUEL: 5. *1; ix

aera >. jointly: vil

aes 5.72

?: Xvi (perhaps on occasion one of the above)

Gercner, Jolin: 2. *1

Gascoigne, Sir John: i

Lady, i

GIBSON, EDMUND, successively bishop of Lincoln and
Ponden: 34.-*9; vii

GIEBS sce GYLES

GILPIN, RICHARD: -*r

William: 1

Girling, Nicolas: 1

Ciedimll--johiv; 2. *1

GLOUCESTER, bishop of, see FOWLER, E.

COODRICKE, Sir HENRY: «ij ~v

Goodwin, Richard: i

GOWER, HUMPHREY, Lady Margaret Professor of
Divinity, Cambridge: 1

Gowland, John: 7. *6; xvi

Grant, Mrs Obedienne: *7

Grave, John: *1

Green, James: *1

GREW, NEHEMIAH, botanist: 2. *1z

Grier, Daniel: *2

Gunter, joan: *4

GYLES, HENRY, glass painter, of York: 24. *15

Haigh, —: i
Hall, John, vicar of Gisburn: *2; i

A4 MISCELLANY

Hall, Sarahn< “5
HALLEY, EDMUND, astronomer: i
Hallows, Samuel: *r

Mrs: 1
Hampton: see Plumpton
Harding, J. 1

Hardy, John, Nonconformist minister at Nottingham: 6. *3; 1x
Hargrave, George: i

Hargreaves, John: *1

Harley, Robert: i

Harrington, Thomas: *1

Hartley, Edward: *2

Robert: *7

HASTINGS, Lady ELIZABETH: viii

Hatfield, John: *z

HEARNE, THOMAS, antiquary: 61. *10; xvi
Brigadier: *1

Hels, George: *1

HENRY, MATIMEW, divine: 11, iv

Hepworth, B. *2

John

Heralds, College of: 1

Hewitt, Sir Thomas, of Shireoaks, Nottingham: 1
(perhaps Merrett), Richard: 2. *1
HEYWOOD, Henry: 3. *2

HEYWOOD, John: 3

—— OLIVER: 23. *4

HICKERINGHILL, EDMUND, pamphleteer: 3. *1
—— Mrs: v

HICKS (HICKES), GEORGE, Nonjuror: ro. *4; v
Fickey,. fohn> *1

Hickman, Sir Willoughby: *1r. L

Hickson, Sir Knightly: *3

Hildyard, Francis: *3

HPLL, ABRAHAM: *2

——— Edward: *1; i

JOSEPH, lexicographer and divine: 13. *8> ii
Hodgson, Timothy: *2

Holdsworth, John: *1

Margaret: *3

Hole, Mrs Sarah: *3; i

Hollings, John, physician: *1

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE 45

Hollins, Philip: *2

Holmes, George: 1. L

Holt, Mrs: 1

HOPKINSON, JOHN (probably the genealogist and
collector): 1

Horsbrother, George: *1

Horsfield, Francis: *2

Hough, Edmund: 1; ii

Nathaniel: 13; %2

MOUGHTION, JOHN, F.R.S.*3

Howard, ‘Mrs Mary, of Worksop’: 2; il

Hudson, John, of University College, Oxford: 1. L

MOMEREY, JOHN: 3

Hunter, W. *1

Hutton, Thomas: *1

Hpbetcon, James: 3. *2)

Samuel: *2

idle, fer. *1

Mielvael: .2. *1

— Richard, vicar of Rothwell and _ brother-in-law of
Thoresby: 25, °*13;-ii

Phomas: *r

liltmeworth, James, B.D.: 6. *3

iinomas: *x

Irwin, Edward Machell Ingram, 4th viscount: iii

Iveson, Edward: *1

ieniry 2) *T.

Jackson, Joseph: *2; ii
Thomas: 9. L *4
William: *1

Jacques, Jerome (Hieron.): *1
Jenings, Miss A. 1. L
Jenkins, Robert: *1
JOHNSON, NATHANIEL, physician: 24. *8
er eiiam: *L.- it

nomas: 7. *4

Jollie: see FOLEY

pup, Ehemas: *1

Kay, Sir Arthur:

46 MISCELLANY

Kay(e), Sir John, bart. *2. See also Cay
Kempe, Timothy: *1

KENNETT, WHITE, bishop of Peterborough: 4; vi
Killingbeck, John, vicar of Leeds: 4. *2
Mrs Mary <..°r

Kophing, timothy > *1

Kipax, —: ‘brazier, of Sleaford’: 1
KIRK(E), CAVENDISH: *1
THOMAS: 125-75

Kirkgarth, John: *1

Richards) 71

Samuel: “14

Knaresborough, John: *2

LANG WIDTH, BENJAMIN: 7. *5> 1

Oswala> *i

Lawson (probably George, alderman): ii

Lazenby, Scudamore, alderman, of Leeds: *1

Leake, John: *1

EP NEVE, PETER: herald: 5; xv

Lee, Benjamin: xiv

Cornet John of Hatfield Woodhouse, collector: *1

Leigh, Thomas: *z

Levinge, Sir Richard: x

Samuel: 2

LISTER, Abraham; a

— Accepted: *2

— Bathshua: *1

— MARTIN: o. *4

LHUYD, EDWARD, keeper of the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxiord: 27. *2

Lockwood, William: *1

Lodge, Henry: *1

Neha: “4

Loftus, Bartholomew, 1

LONDON, bishop of, see GIBSON, E.

Lonsdale, Christopher: *1

Lowther, Ralph: i

Sir William: 2

Lucas ohn: 5. *3

Lumley, George, schoolmaster at York: *3; i

Lyle, Timothy: *1

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE 47

ive AR. *2

Madox, Susan, wife of THOMAS MADOX, antiquary: 6.
ey; ui

MANGEY, THOMAS: *r

MANLOVE, TIMOTHY: *2

Manning, Samuel: *1

Marsden, Sarah: 1x: L

Marshall, Mrs Mary: 2. *1

Mauduit, Peers, Windsor Herald: x. L

Mauliverer, John (? of Magdalene College, Cambridge): *1

Mawhood, John, ‘clerk’: *1

Merrett: see Hewitt

Mickleton, James: 1. L

Midgley, John: *1

jemathan: *r. L

Samuel: I
Miler fohn:, to. *6; 1
Mary: 8. *6

— Robert: 1

>= Wiliam: 11. *7; Iv

MOLESWORTH, ROBERT, F.R.S., later rst viscount Moles-
worth: I

MOLYNEUX, SAMUEL, astronomer and politician: 1; vii
Morley, —: i

Morris, Edward, vicar of Aldburgh: *2

Mortimer, William: *11r

Moult, William: 1; 1

Myers, Elizabeth: *1

N., D., pseud., see Stretton

INaison, John: *1

Valentine, iv

Nelson, Har. *2

NESS), CHRISTOPHER, divine and:author: 2. *1

NEVE: see LE NEVE

Nevill, Rev. Cavendish, of University College, Oxford: 3.
nO

Gervase: *I

NEWCOME, HENRY: 1. i

Newman, Erenry, Secretary ofthe S.P.C.K 11.) *4; xn

Nicols, Samuel, of Halifax: ii

NICOLSON, WILLIAM, bishop-of Carlisle: So. *17;, xxxvi

48 MISCELLANY

Nicolson, Mrs: iv

Norton, Katherine: *1

NOTTINGHAM, archdeacon of: see PEARSON, W.
Nutt, John (? printer and bookseller): *1

Roses

UGLETHORPE, tad: "1: 11

or LHEOPHIEUS: *1

Oliphant, J. 1

OSBORNE, Peregrine Hyde, marquess of Carmarthen: see
CARMARTHEN

Osgood, Richard: *1

Owen, James, of Oswestry: I

Johns =

OXFORD, bishop ot: see POTTER, f-

Paimer, Willtam: *1

Parker, Edward and Robert: *1

Robpert> 1

thomas, ord Chiret Justice; *13 4

Parkins’ Tiemas: “1

Parlis, |osepn 745 1

PARMENTIPR or PERMENTIER, JAMES, artist: 4. *3
Pearson, Mary: "1

William, archdeacon of Nottingham: 4. *3
PECK FPRANCIS,antiquary: 1

Pendlebury, William, Nonconformist minister at Leeds: *3
Perrott, Phomas: *1

PETERBOROUGH, bishop of: see KENNETT, W.
Peters, Peter: *1

Philipps, Erasmus: *1. 1

Pickering, John: *2

Pitney, Abigail: “1

Pivre, oir Henry "95 Ti

Plaxton, Anastasia: *I

Plaxton, Mrs Anna: *2

Rev. George, of Barwick-in-Elmet: 121. *61; ii
Plumpton (perhaps Hampton), Robert: 1. L

Pollard, Johm: *1

POT Tiik) JOHN, bishop of Oxford: | *1

Preston, Croft, Major > *i

Priestley, Jonathan, of Halifax: 2. *1; iv

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE 49

Priestley, Jonathan, jum.; 20. *17

Nathaniel: *2

Prov ME, Rev. ABIKAHAM DE, ILA, F.RS.) 5
Fuleyn (Pullaine), Danrel: *1; 1

uecand, Ihomas: ©: i

Reem RICK, JOHN: Z *3

RAY, JOHN, botanist: 2

ieagmier, Llizabeth: *2

neanry 1s iv

homas: “1, es 4

evuard, —: i

RIGHARDSON, John: *2; iv
——- ICHARD, botanist: 36. *o
Troomcon, Rev..Henry: 8. *7
lane. *i

Saami, the benefactor : *1
pinomas: 4. *2

odes, Mary: *1; 1

seam: 2. *T

Rooke, William, mayor of Leeds and ‘merchant’: 2. *1
Rosenbusch, S.: i

Rosewell, Samuel, chaplain to Lord Wharton: 2. *1
Ross, Robert: *2

imiomas: *T

1

Rutley, —: i

Sagar, James: i

—— Joseph: 5. L. *3

ae nonas:. 1

ST. ASAPH, bishop of : see TANNER, W.

Sie aytD:S, bishop ot: see BISSE, P;

SALISBURY, bishop of; see- BURNET, G.

SAMPSON, Anne: *2

-HENRY, Nonconformist minister and physician: 13.
50) Al

Sanders, Thomas, *I

Scarborough, Anne: *1

peGak, SIMON, of Gray’s Inn: *r; 1

Shafto, W. or M. *r

50 MISCELLANY

SHARP, Abraham: 2, *1> 1

= JOHN, archbishop of York: 25. *7; xu
Thomas, minister at Leeds: 12. *9
Shaw, John: *1

Shelton, Theophilus: *1. i

Sherard, William: *1z

Simmons, Neville: *3, 1

Simpson, Jacob, ‘merchant’: *5

Samuel: -*7

Slater, Lancelot, minister in London: ii
SROANT Sir HANS, collector: 7. *4; x
Smith, Mrs Em. *1

MrssFrancis? 4

——G. 4. *2
Dr John. iv
Joseph: 10s "12>. iv
—— M—: 16. *13
—— Matthew: i
—— Paylar: *3; iii
—— Samuel: 7. *4

— Rev. W., rector of Melsonby: ii

— William: * 16

ron bexeter Chanse 11

Smithson, [homas: *2

Smyth, foal

SODOR AND MAN, bishop of: see WILSON, T.

Spademani, |. 7%

SPENCER, Robert, earl of Sunderland: see SUNDERLAND

Squire, Thomas: 92511

Stackhouse, Elizabeth (2? wife of THOMAS STACKHOUSE,
theologian): *2

Stamper, Kober 2

Stapleton, Sir Brian: (perhaps Sir Miles) i

Stead, Samuel: 111

Steck, Philip: 1

Stonestreet, William: *1

Stopford, Samuel: 1

Sivetion, Rev, Richard: 60. *30. L; xii

Sky EPE, JON -antquary: 53. “20; wi

Stubbes, Samuel: *2

STURT, ())enaaver: 1

SUNDERLAND, ROBERT SPENCER, second earl of: *r

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE 51

Sutherland, James: 5. *3
Swalle, Abel: bookseller: 1
Swann, Philip: *1. i
Sydenham, Sir P. iv

Sykes, Joseph: *1

—— Samuel: *1

William: *r

Symson: see Simpson

Talbot, Katherine: *r1

TALLENTS, FRANCIS, Unitarian minister: 5. *2
TANNER, WIILIAM, bishop of St. Asaph: *z
Tatham: see Topham

Davior, Tromas.: *1

—— William: *1

Vempest, stephen: *2. L

Thomas, Alban: *2

Thomson, Thomas: *2

Thoresby, Anna (aunt): 2. *1

—— Jer. *2
Jems 2.1
Joseph: *3
Joshua: iii

RALPH: addresses letters to: Anstis, Arthington,
Avenant, Baker, Calverley, Carmarthen, Chamberlayne,
Charlett, Clapham, Clarke, Dawes, George Edwards,
Evelyn, Brian Fairfax, Roger and Samuel Gale, Gibson,
Girling, Grew, Hearne, Hicks, Kay, Kennett, Kirk, Le
Neve, Lister, Lhuyd, Lowther, Manlove, Newman, Nicol-
son, Lady Oglethorpe, Joseph Parlis, de la Pryme, Richard-
son, Lord Chief Justice Parker, Rooke, Royal Society, John
Sharp, Sloane, Strype, William Smith, Jacob Simpson,
Stretton, Mrs. Thoresby, Toland, John Walker, Warburton,
Wispelaer; and some unidentified.

Richard: v

Thoresby’s wife [Anna]: 1

ahoresby-s son: 6. *2;. vi

Thoresby’s daughter: i

thorn! Phemas? 4

dhernton, hichard, recorder of Leeds: “tau, *o; 1. L
Tempest: i

Threapland, Samuel: *1

52 MISCELLANY

‘Todd, Hlizabeth=" 71: i

Jone *1

TOERAND, JOHN, irecthinker> 3. “1

TONG, WILLIAM, Presbyterian minister: 3; 11
Tonstal, George, M.D.: *r

Mary: *2

Topham (perhaps Tatham), Thomas: 2. *1. L
TOMRE, VANES: 4.72)

Totue see FOLEY

Towers, John: *5

Towneley, Charles, Esq., of Towneley: 20. *15; 1
Mary. 1

Richard” 7

Trombell§ john: >

Vavasour, Sir Walter: i
VERIUE, GROKGE, engraver: 1.1

Wainwright, Mary: *2

Saban "30-4

— Thomas: *1

WALKER, John, recorder of Leeds: 1
— OBADIAH: 3. *1

— Susannah: *1

Witham: *1

Waller, Richard, secretary of the Royal Society: 1
WANLEY, HUMFREY: 1
WARBURTON, JOHN, herald: *2; i
Warnam, Richard: *x

WASSE, JOSEPH, scholar: =n; 1
Waterhead, Jer. *1

Waterhouse, John: *2

Watkinson, Henry: 1

Wentworth, Michael: 1

Wentworth, Hon. Thomas: ui

Hon. Thomas (Watson): I
Westby, Thomas: *1; 1
Westmorland, earl of, see Fane, J.
WHARTON, Daniel: I

PHILIP, Lord: 2

White, John: 1

White, Robert: *1; i

RALPH THORESBY’S CORRESPONDENCE 53

Whittaker, T. *2

WILDMAN, Colonel Sir JOHN: *3

Wilkinson, Christopher: *2. L

Willey, B. *1

Wilhams, J., pseud., see Walker, Obadiah

Wilson, E—: *1

Blizabeth: *1

Jonathan: 2

—— Richard: *4; i

—— Thomas (i) bishop of Sodor and Man: I; vi

(i)erecorder of leeds: rn) L

(iii) resident at Rotterdam (? and also of Elm
Court, Middle Temple): 6. *1, i

Winchester, —: 1

Wispelaer, Francis (A)Fgidius de: 4. *3

Witsen, N. *1

Witton, Richard: *2

Witty (ov Wittie), John: I; 1

Womwel, W.:

Wood, John: *3

Wood or Woods, Joseph, vicar of Sandal: *3

Woodhouse, John of Sheriffhales, Salop: *1; i

WOODW AKD, JOHN, F.R.S..10.. *23.1

Worthington, John (probably not the theologian of DNB): *r

Wray, see Ray

Wright, Benjamin: *1

Jonathan: 1, L

Iveceeca:, *1

Wrightson, Ralph: *1

Wyatt, John, bookseller: 5. *2; vili

YORK, JOHN, archbishop of, see SHARP, J.
—— WILLIAM, archbishop of, see DAWES, W.

Unidentified: letters with missing, indecipherable, erased or
damaged signatures, and letters not otherwise identified:
i eg cE)

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING
iN EEEDS

By H. PEMBERTON

Introduction

IN CONSIDERING THE history of English country banking in
any locality it is important to remember that there were three
classes of commercial banks.

First there were the private banking firms, as prior to 1826
no bank (with the exception of the Bank of England) was
allowed to have more than six partners. There is no record
of any bank being formed in Leeds before the middle of the
eighteenth century.

In 1826 a law was passed which allowed joint stock banks
to be formed with more than six partners, but with unlimited
liability of the shareholders. This class of bank had the draw-
back that every single shareholder was liable for all the
commitments of the bank. Between 1830 and 1837 six joint
stock banks were established in Leeds.

The Act of 1857 allowed joint stock banks to be registered
with limited lability of the shareholders, but this class of bank
did not find much favour until about twenty years after the
passing of the Act.

The Bank Act of 1844 laid down that no bank in England,
whether private or joint stock, which was not at that time
issuing notes, should be permitted to do so, and no bank was
allowed to have in circulation upon the average of four weeks,
a greater amount of notes than the average amount which the
bank had had in circulation during the twelve weeks preceding
the 27 April, 1844. A banker exceeding his limit was liable to
forfeit an amount equal to the excess.

The issue of notes by the early banks was a source of con-
siderable profit to the issuing bank. The notes were readily
accepted by traders in the district where the bank operated.

Previous to 1826 the banking business of the provinces was
carried on by private individuals and firms. The great thing

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 55

gained by this was that there was some safe deposit for money,
and people looked round and judged by the extent of a man’s
landed property and his style of living whether he might be
regarded as a good payer when the time came. It was men of
that description, some of them without any previous knowledge
whatsoever of banking as a science, who made themselves
responsible for the savings of the people, and, without much
technical knowledge, made loans at interest. The senior partner
in some of the early banks did not appear to have taken a very
active part in the management. In some cases the banks were
formed by successful business men of high standing, commenc-
ing banking as a side line to their ordinary business. We have
an example of this in Mrs Gaskell’s novel, ‘Sylvia’s Lovers’.
In this story, the old-established firm of John Foster & Son,
Drapers of Whitby, also carried on a banking business. Later,
they made over the drapery business to their two assistants,
and then devoted all their time to banking. (It is generally
understood that this referred to Sanders & Sons, who gave up
business about 1830.) We have similar examples in early Leeds
banks.

Some of the early joint stock banks were formed by private
banking firms increasing the number of their partners to more
than six, others were started by successful business men and
gentlemen who were held in high repute in a town or district,
forming a company and issuing shares to the public. Very
often they would appoint a partner in an established private
bank, or a member of the staff of a bank to be their manager.
By the issue of shares to the public, many business men as
well as residents in the district became interested in the new
bank and placed their business there.

Pursuant to an Act of Parliament, it was usual for a joint
stock bank to appoint two or more members of the Company
as the Public Officers; their names were registered at the Stamp
Office, London. The bank could sue and be sued as the nominal
plaintiffs or defendants for or on behalf of the bank.

Under Act 7 & 8 Vic. c.32, banks had to make a return of
the names and addresses of all their shareholders or partners.
Some of these returns, as pHpashed in the newspapers, make
interesting reading.

It was not until about 1887 that any commercial bank had
more than one office in Leeds.

56 MISCELLANY

Banks founded in Leeds in the eighteenth century

BECKETT'S BANK

In ‘The Westminster Bank through the Century’, Professor
T. E. Gregory* describes the firm of Beckett & Co. who were
known as ‘The Old Bank’, as being started in the true spirit
of Merchant Adverturers. ‘Some time early in the eighteenth
century two brothers of the Beckett family moved from their
home at Barnsley and became woollen merchants in Leeds;
here they must have been successful, for they persuaded
business friends to join them in chartering a vessel to export
local goods to Portugal and to import the produce of Portugal,
chiefly wine. Success attended this new venture, and other
business was done abroad in this way, some of the participators
leaving part of their profits on deposit to be dealt with by the
Becketts in further undertakings. The interchange of goods
with foreign countries necessarily involved cash transactions
and the negotiation of bills of exchange. Gradually the actual
merchanting of woollen goods was abandoned or left to others,
and the Becketts confined themselves to the business of bank-
ing pure and simple. No date is given for the complete change-
over, but William Beckett, giving evidence before the Secret
Committee on the Bank Charter in 1832, said that his Bank
had been established about 58 years.’* This no doubt refers to
the date when John Beckett became a partner in the Old Bank.

The two brothers referred to above were John Beckett, born
on 30 April, 1743, and Joseph Beckett, born 31 August, 1751,
and so it would be the second half of the century when they
came to Leeds. They were the sons of John Beckett, of
Barnsley, by his second wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Joseph
Wilson, and they were the grandsons of Gervase Beckett, of
Barnsley. John Beckett who became the banker in Leeds, was
afterwards created the first baronet.

It is very probable that the Beckett brothers, in addition to
being woollen merchants would also be interested in the linen
trade, which flourished in Leeds and the Yorkshire Dales.
John Arthington, who was one of the founders of The Old
Bank was a linen draper in Leeds. When Joseph Beckett re-
turned to Barnsley he became a linen manufacturer; he also

* The quotations in this section are from geet II, 136-7, and are reprinted

by kind permission of the Westminster Bank Ltd.
* Tbhid., 136:

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 57

became the senior partner in the banking firm of Beckett,
Birks & Co. of Barnsley.

The Old Bank was founded early in the second half of the
eighteenth century. All the early issues of the Bankers’
Almanac give the date as 1750. I am told that some of the
early bank notes had printed on them, ‘Established in 1758’.

The first name of the Bank was LODGE & ARTHINGTON;
the partners were Thomas Lodge who lived at Red Hall, in
the Head Row (the nephew of an eminent London merchant)
and John Arthington, a linen draper in Leeds. This was the
first banking firm to be established in Leeds; at that time there
were only about twelve banks in the provinces.

Like other early Leeds banks, their office was in what is
now Briggate, near where the Empire Theatre now stands. In
an advertisement in 1780, for the letting of ‘The White Hart
Inn’, which was in the Market Place, the inn was described
as being situate in the ‘Old Bank Yard’. It is very probable,
as was common in the early days of provincial banking, that
one of the partners would reside on the premises; later, even
up to the beginning of the present century, it was usual for the
manager or one of the senior officials to reside at the Bank
House. By 1822 the Bank had moved to No. 81 Briggate, near
Swan Street, on the opposite side of Briggate; from about 1826
to 1867 their office was at No. 154 Briggate, which is a little
below Duncan Street, and on 3 June, 1867, they moved to
the newly erected premises in Park Row, where the business
is still carried on.

It would appear that another partner was admitted to the
firm before John Beckett became a partner, as in the Leeds
Intelligencer for 6 October, 1772, the following announcement
occurs : —

“Whereas the Partnership of Lodge, Arthington, Broadbent &
Beckett, Bankers in Leeds, is this day dissolved — Mr Broadbent
having (by mutual consent) withdrawn himself from the said
Co-partnership; Notice is hereby given, that all Engagements by
or with the said Partnership will be punctually fulfilled by the
said Lodge, Arthington & Beckett at their Bank in Leeds as
usual—

Signed by Tho Lodge, John Arthington, Tho Broadbent, John
Beckett.’

‘Becketts remained in Leeds as bankers for about a century
and a half, members of the family always being partners,

58 MISCELLANY

though other partners were taken in from the locality.’” As with
other private banks, the name of the firm changed when new
partners were admitted or old ones retired.

In the Leeds Reference Library are a number of pass books
of John Wilson and John Wilson & Son, in account with
Becketts Bank. From the headings on the pass books we can
trace the changing partners in the Bank, which were as
follows : —

it january, 1778 Wilson, Arthington, Beckett & Co.
21 November, 1778 Wilson, Arthington, Beckett & Calverley
Junior.
i january, . 1730 Wilson, Beckett & Calverley Junior.
it january, 173% Wilson, Beckett & Co.
1 January, 1789 Wilson, Beckett, Calverley & Lodge.
I January, 1790 Beckett, Calverley & Lodge.
1 January, 1791 Beckett, Calverley, Lodge & Co.
1 January, 1801 Beckett, Calverley & Co.
1 January, 1808 Beckett, Blaydes. &. Co:

The title of Beckett, Blaydes & Co. remains in the pass book
until 1833. An announcement in the Leeds Mercury for 27
March, 1806, states that William Wilson had withdrawn him-
self from the partnership carried on under the name of Beckett,
Calverley & Co. and that in future the partners would be:
John Beckett, John Calverley & Christopher Beckett.

In 1790 the partners were, John Beckett, of Meanwood
Hall; John Calverley, of Park Lane; and Richard Lodge, son
of Thomas Lodge, one of the founders of the Bank. (Thomas
Lodge died in 1776.) In the Directory for 1798 the name of
the firm is given as Beckett, Calverley & Wilson, the last-
named partner being William Wilson, who resided in Park
Square, and is the gentleman referred to in the above notice of
retirement.

Early in the nineteenth century the firm became Beckett,
Blaydes & Co. (John Calverley assumed, by Royal Licence
in 1807, the name and arms of Blaydes.) ‘The Blaydes family,
then in association with Becketts were the forebears of the
Blaydes family, the head of which is now Lord Ebbisham.’*
From about 1840 the firm became known as Beckett & Co.
An official advertisement in the Leeds Mercury for 1848 gives
the partners as: William Beckett, of Kirkstall Grange; Sir
Thomas Beckett, of Somerby Park, Gainsborough; Edmund

oT Ot... 130%
*1bid.4 136.

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 59

Denison, of Doncaster; John Smith, of Burley House, Leeds;
George Hyde, of Hope Villa, Leeds. When William Beckett
entered Parliament in 1841, the firm of Beckett & Co. brought
into the partnership John Smith, who came from Aberdeen
to be the first Manager of the Leeds Banking Company, which
was founded in 1832. It was his admirable management of
this concern that attracted the attention of the Beckett family,
and which led to the partnership mentioned above. Over 20
years after John Smith had left the Leeds Banking Company,
the institution fell on evil times by the fraudulent conduct of
its then Manager, E. Greenland. Mr Smith took a very active
part in the management of the Old Bank from 1841 to 1860.
Before joining Beckett & Co., George Hyde was Sub-Agent
at The Bank of England. The Bankers’ Almanac for 1863
gives the partners as: William Beckett, Edmund Denison,
John Smith, William Beckett Denison and John Metcalfe
Smith; the last-named gentleman was the son of the above-
named John Smith. On completion of his education, John
Metcalfe Smith joined the staff of Beckett & Co., and later
was made a partner.

At the beginning of the present century, George Brown,
George R. Lancaster and Geoffrey Ellis were members of the
firm.

‘In 1868 Becketts bought the firm of Cooke, Yarborough &
Co. of Doncaster, a bank which had existed since 1750. In
1875 the expansion to the East Riding took place and another
bank, Beckett & Co. East Riding Bank, was created by the
purchase of Bower, Hall & Co., of Beverley.’’ This firm was
founded in 1812 and throughout the changes in the partner-
ship, the name of Bower persisted. The Bank was ‘situated in
the rich farming district of the East Riding of Yorkshire, and
obviously would combine well with the industrial West Riding,
where Becketts already had their Bank. In 1874 James Hall,
the senior partner in Bower Hall & Co. wished to retire, and
two of the Beckett family who were already partners in the
Leeds Bank became partners in his place. In spite of the great
local opposition the name of Bower, Hall & Co. was changed
to Beckett & Co. of the East Riding Bank, with its Head
Office at Beverley and a branch at Pocklington. In 1879 the
East Riding Bank took over the old-established firm of Swann,
Clough & Co. of York, founded in 1771, thereby gaining an

* Tbid., 136.

60 MISCELLANY

office in York in addition to others at Beverley, Malton,
Driffield, Pocklington, Pickering & Helmsley. The name was
then changed to Beckett & Co. York and East Riding Bank.’®
In 1884 the East Riding Bank moved its headquarters to York
where it remained until 1920 when both the Leeds and York
Banks were amalgamated with the London County West-
minster & Parr’s Bank Ltd., the name of which was changed
in 1923 to Westminster Bank Ltd. ‘Thus for six generations
the Beckett family had been bankers in Yorkshire. They lived
in the district and understood its people, and by this under-
standing and by their many benefactions in Leeds they earned
both respect and esteem.’’ On amalgamation two of the
partners, the Hon. W. Gervase Beckett and the Hon. Rupert E.
Beckett became Directors of the Westminster Bank Ltd., one
of whom, Hon. Rupert E. Beckett, also became Chairman.

The authorised note circulation under the Act of 1844 was
£130,757, and that of Bower, Hall & Co. of the East Riding
Bank was £53,392. [he actual circulation in the ’nineties was
much below this, and by 1913 it had sunk to £40,000. The
increased demand for circulating media during the First World
War brought about a marked change, so much that in I9QI9
the circulation was as much as £153,690 for the two banks.

At the time of the amalgamation with the London County
Westminster & Parr’s Bank Ltd. (now the Westminster Bank
Ltd.), Becketts had 37 branches. They were the last of the
country private banks.

Members of the Beckett family also partners in the banking
firm took a prominent part in civic and Parliamentary affairs.
Sir John Beckett, first baronet, was Mayor in 1775 and 17097;
the Right Hon. Sir John Beckett the second baronet, M.P.,
was a Privy Councillor and Under-Secretary of State for the
Home Department. Christopher Beckett was a magistrate and
Deputy Lieutenant for the West Riding of Yorkshire; he was
also Mayor of Leeds in 1819 and 18209; William Beckett was
elected Member of Parliament for Leeds in 1841; later he was
elected Member for the City of Ripon; John Calverley (later
Blaydes) who was a partner at the end of the eighteenth
century, was Mayor of Leeds in 1798. These are just a few
references to this distinguished family of bankers who did so
much for the welfare of the people of Leeds.

© Tbid., 136-7.
"“Tbid., 137.

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 61

The following is an extract from the Leeds Evening Express
for Wednesday, 8 March, 1871, and is of interest in respect
of the Corporation’s banking arrangement at that time.

CORPORATION BANKING ACCOUNT

‘The Committee appointed on 8 February to consider the banking
arrangements have to report that they made a full investigation
into the terms on which the Bankers of Leeds are willing to con-
duct the banking business of the Council.

Considering the many years Beckett & Co. have been the Council’s
Bankers, the large sums of money lent to the Council through
their iniuence, patticularly the assistance rendered at a very
important juncture for the purchase of the Gas Works, they made
the first application to them; they then communicated with the
other Banks, and received from them the conditions on which
they were disposed to conduct the business. They therefore
unanimously recommend that the banking account of the Corpora-
tion be kept with Beckett & Co. on the following terms : —

1. That no charge be made for Commission.

2. That a sum of £10,000 be left in the Banker’s hand without
Interest.

3. That should the balance fall below £10,000, Interest at Bank
Rate be charged on the difference.

4. That on all balances in their hands over the above £10,000
4% less than the Bank Rate of Interest be allowed.

5. That the Bankers agree to advance from time to time any
sums not exceeding £50,000 at the Bank Rate of the day.

6. That the accounts be kept in the same manner as they are
at present.

7. That in addition to these conditions Beckett & Co. agree to
lend the Corporation the sum of £50,000 at a Rate of Interest
to be agreed upon.’

From the following advertisement which appeared in the
Leeds Mercury for 18 March, 1777, it would appear that
partners of the Leeds Bank were also interested in insurance.
It is of interest to note that the Bank was the only one in Leeds
until the beginning of 1777. It was only after the establishment
of a second Bank that it became known as ‘The Old Bank’.

“LEP DS FIRE:OPPICE,8 March, 1777. [he Public are hereby
informed, that an Office is this Day Opened at the Leeds Bank,
where Houses and other Buildings, Goods, Wares and Merchandize
may be Insured from Loss and Damage by Fire, and Persons
already insured, may transfer their Insurance into this Office

62 MISCELLANY

without any Expence for the Policy. Proposals at large may be
had at the said Office or at any of the Proprietors’ Houses.

Thomas Wilson, John Beckett,
John Blaydes, William Walker,
John Arthington, John Calverley, Jun.

Agents will be Speedily appointed in most of the Principal Towns
in this County.’

Under the date 2 December, 1777, is the following announce-
Ment 2
‘LEEDS FIRE OFFICE: .. ..For the Accommodation.of the
Public, the Proprietors have provided a NEW FIRE-ENGINE
with a sufficient number of Leather Buckets, etc. which will be
kept, with those belonging to the Town, at the engine-house in
Kirkgate, and in case of accident upon Notice given either to Mr.
Lindley, in Kirkgate, or at the above Office, the Engine may be
immediately had.’

LEEDS NEW BANK

The second bank in Leeds was founded in 1777. The
following notice appeared in the Leeds Mercury for 3 Decem-
fee i770,

‘Leeds New Bank. This is to acquaint the Public, that Henry
Wickham, Joshua Field, Edward Cleaver and William Eamon-
son, Jun., will open a Bank, in Boar Lane, on the First of January
next. The Business will be transacted by the said William
Eamonson, Jun. and Assistants; and all notes and Bills of this
Company will be subscribed by him or Joseph Atkinson, who only
are authorised to sign the same.’

Henry Wickman was a landowner residing at Cottingley
Hall. He was the son of Rev. Henry Wickham, who was at
one time Rector of Guisely; Joshua Field resided at Austhorpe
Lodge. I have not been able to trace any particulars of Edward
Cleaver, and it is probable that none of these three took any
part in the activities of the Bank, but left the management in
the hands of the junior partner, William Eamonson, Junior.

It would appear that almost immediately the Bank moved
to Briggate, as in the Leeds Mercury for 4 March, 1777, there
is an announcement that Robert Jubb was on that day opening
a shop next door to the New Bank, in Briggate. It is very
probable that the office was at No. 42, as these premises were
later used by another bank, after the New Bank had moved
to Bank Street. A few years after the formation of the Bank,

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 63

the name became Wickham, Field, Cleaver, Jameson & Green-
wood. Later William Greenwood was made an alderman of
Leeds, and appears to have remained a partner until his death
in 1817. By 1798 the name had been changed to Wickham,
Field, Cleaver & Greenwood. Henry Wickham died in 1804
and soon after the firm became known as Field, Greenwood &
Co, About 1807 they moved their office to No. 12 Bank Street.
As this was the first bank to have an office in that street, it is
very probable that Bank Street got its name from that fact.

It is interesting to note that Nos. 11 and 12 Bank Street were
both used as bank premises; the buildings are still standing,
and from their appearance it is very probable that they have
not been altered externally since they were erected, and the

brickwork is still in a very good state of preservation.
The Bank failed in 1827.

WRIGHT & HEMINGWAY

Thomas Wright and William Hemingway were bankers in
Hecd= im tne last decade of the eighteenth century. Ihere is
very little information to be had concerning this firm, but in
the Library of the Institute of Bankers, London, there is one
of Wright & Hemingway’s notes for £1. Is. od.; it is dated
17 September, 1792, and is signed by Thos. Wright, for Self &
William Hemingway. There is also a copy of a similar note,
dated 29 September, 1797. The address of the firm is given on
the copy as Leeds (Nr. St Peters Square).

LET DS. COMMERCIAL BANK

Another Leeds Bank founded in the eighteenth century was
Fenton Scott, Binns, Nicholson & Smith. The following
announcement appeared in the Leeds Intelligencer for 2 April,
1792: —

‘Leeds Commercial Bank is this Day opened (Near the bottom

of Briggate) under the Firm of Fenton Scott, Binns, Nicholson &
sumth, 2 April, 1792”.

William Fenton Scott was the son of Henry Scott, merchant,
of Boar Lane, who was an alderman of Leeds, and his grand-
father, William Fenton, was Mayor of Leeds in 1733 and
again in 1747. William Fenton Scott resided for some years
at Woodhall, near Wetherby, and died there in 1813, the year

64 MISCELLANY

following the failure of the Bank. He was a keen follower of
the Bramham Moor Hunt. Until recently his portrait in oils
hung over the Bench in the Knaresborough Magistrates’ Court.
Lucas Nicholson was son of George Nicholson, of Cawood
(who was a Chamberlain of York). He married a daughter of
Nicholas Smith, of Leeds, so it is very probable that the junior
partner, George Smith, who resided in Park Square, was a
relative of Lucas Nicholson. Lucas Nicholson was a partner
in the firm of Nicholson & Upton, Attorneys, whose office was
in Commercial Court, adjoining the Bank. A few days after
the opening of the Bank he was elected Town Clerk of Leeds,
and he held that position until the Bank failed, when he was
succeeded by his son, James Nicholson. The other partner was
John Binns, a Bookseller, Stationer and Printer in Briggate.

The Bank also had an office at Thirsk, which was a town of
numerous fairs, and where the weekly market did a consider-
able trade in poultry, butter and eggs, which were purchased
by dealers from West Riding towns. The Branch was known
as ““The Thirsk Bank’’ and this name is printed on all the
notes which were issued from Thirsk; all those which I have
seen are signed on behalf of the firm by William Lister Fenton
Scott, who was son of William Fenton Scott. The notes issued
from the Leeds Office which I have seen are all signed by either
George Smith or William Lister Fenton Scott.

When the Bank stopped payment on 8 January, 1812, the
partners were William Fenton Scott, Lucas Nicholson and
George Smith (John Binns died on 6 May, 1706). A first
dividend was paid to the creditors soon after the failure of the
Bank, and a final dividend, making 20s. in the £, was paid
on 6 August, 1816.

William Lister Fenton Scott also resided for some time at
Woodhall. After the failure of the Bank, he was for 16 years
up to the date of his death, in 1842, Registrar for the West
Riding of Yorkshire.

Banks founded in Leeds during the nineteenth century and
Banks which opened branches in Leeds after the
beginning of the century

On r January, 1813 (the year following the failure of Fenton

Scott, Nicholson & Smith) was founded the firm of Nicholson,
Brown & Co., known as the UNION BANK;; the original

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 05

partners were Thomas and Stephen Nicholson, of Roundhay
Park; William Williams Brown, the son of a Leeds cloth
merchant; Joseph Janson, a London merchant; and Timothy
Rhodes, who belonged to a Yorkshire family, The Nicholsons
were only identified with the Bank until 1824, and it was from
this family that Roundhay Park was acquired by the Leeds
Corporation in 1872.

Their first premises were at No. 24 Commercial Street, but
very soon they moved to No. 28 Commercial Street where they
remained until they removed to Nos. 31/32 Park Row in
1900.

After the retirement of Thomas and Stephen Nicholson from
the firm, the name was changed to William Williams Brown &
Co. and although there were from time to time changes in the
partnership, the Bank continued under the name of William
Williams Brown & Co. until they amalgamated with Lloyds
Bank Ltd. in rg00. In 1865 the partners were Samuel James
Brown, John Whitaker, Edward Janson, Henry Oxley, Joseph
Lupton and James Walker Oxley.

Simultaneously with the establishment of the Leeds business,
a London branch was formed under the name of Brown,
Janson & Co.

William Williams Brown died in 1856 and was succeeded
as senior partner by Henry Oxley who had joined the Bank
in 1848. For some time Oxley resided at No. 29 Commercial
Street which adjoined the Bank. He died in 1890, when his
son James Walker Oxley, who had become a partner in 1861,
suceceded iim: as head of* the firm. At the time ‘oi the
amalgamation with Lloyds Bank Ltd. the partners in the Leeds
business were James Walker Oxley, Thomas Harrison, William
James Brown and Richard Wilson, and those of the London
business were James Walker Oxley, Thomas Harrison, William
James Brown, John Whitaker Cooper, James Greig and
Ernest Tozer Janson.

In Leeds Worthies, by the Rev. R. V. Taylor, published in
1865, William Williams Brown is described as a very judicious,
cautious and skilful banker. He was a magistrate for the
Borough of Leeds and also for the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Leeds Illustrated for 1892 refers to Henry Oxley as a well
known and familiar figure in Leeds who took a deep interest
in many works having for their object the progress and general
good of the town and its people. He was twice elected to fill

F

66 MISCELLANY

the office of chief magistrate, viz. for the years 1865 and 1872,
and made a most popular Mayor. In conjunction with James
Kitson he accepted the position of Honorary Treasurer to the
Building Fund of the Leeds Infirmary and took an active part
in raising the necessary subscriptions.

Another bank which by amalgamation became part of
Lloyds Bank was the HALIFAX & HUDDERSFIELD
UNION BANKING CO. LTD. which was founded in 1836,
and had opened an office in the Standard Buildings, in City
Square, in 1904. It was taken over in Ig1o by the HALIFAX
JOINT STOCK BANKING CO. LTD., which was founded
in 1829, and had opened a branch in rgor at No. 39 Park
Row. In rg1r the name was changed to the WEST YORK-
SHIRE BANK LTD. In 1919 it amalgamated with Lloyds
Bank Ltd., and later the business was transferred to the chief
Leeds Office at Nos. 31/32 Park Row.

PERFECT Ss BpANK

John Perfect and William Perfect, of Pontefract, were both
in business as bankers for about 40 years. They were associated
with three firms, all of which were founded about r800, and
had partners in common. The Pontefract firm was Perfect,
Seaton & Co., the Huddersfield firm was Perfect, Seaton,
Brooke & Co. and the Selby firm was Seatons & Foster. It
would appear that these partnerships lasted about ten years,
as their names appear in the 1809 edition of Langdale’s
Topographical Dictionary of Yorkshire, but in the Annals,
History & Guide of Leeds & Yorkshire, by Wm. Pearson and
Wm. White, published in 1830, there is a statement, under
the date of September 1810, that the banking houses of Seaton,
Sons & Foster of Pontefract, Seaton, Brooke & Co. of Hudders-
field, and Seaton, Foster & Co. of Selby had stopped payment.

I have in my possession a bank note for £1. 1s. od. dated
7 March, 1806, which is printed in the name of Perfect,
Seaton & Co., of Pontefract; the name ‘Perfect’ has been
deleted; the note is endorsed with a notice dated 25 February,
1811, stating that it had been exhibited under the Common
Commission of Bankruptcy against John Seaton, John Fox
Seaton and Robert Seaton. As the name of Perfect had been
deleted from this note, and although it is dated in 1806, it
would appear that this note had been re-issued after the

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 67

dissolution of the partnership, which without doubt had taken
place before the Act of Bankruptcy had been committed, as
the name of Perfect does not appear in the Bankruptcy notice.

In the Leeds Mercury for 6 August, 1776, there is a note
that a large Snake Cucumber was growing in the garden of
J. & W. Perfect, of Pontefract. From this it would appear
that the Perfects were in partnership at that time, possibly in
trade, before they took up banking.

By 1814 the name of the Pontefract firm had become Perfect,
Hotham & Co. (Probably Mr Hotham was a member of the
well known East Riding family.) In that same year they opened
a branch in Leeds, under the name of CROWDER, PERFECT
& CO., and their office was at No. 9 Briggate, in the premises
formerly occupied by Fenton Scott, Nicholson & Smith. The
partners in the Leeds branch were John Crowder, John
Perfect and William Perfect. George Smith, who had been a
partner with William Fenton Scott and Lucas Nicholson, later
joined this Bank, after the creditors of his old firm had been
paid in full, but no doubt he had earlier associations with
Perfects.

By 1817 the name of the firm had changed to PERFECT,
HARDCASTLE & CO. The partner, Christopher Hardcastle,
resided at the Bank House, No. 1 Commercial Court, which
adjoined the Bank. About ten years later the partners were
John and William Perfect and George Smith. John Perfect
continued to reside at the Bank’s chief office in Ropergate,
Pontefract, but later he moved to Leeds and resided at No. 9
Brunswick Place. William Perfect followed Christopher Hard-
castle as the occupier of No. 1 Commercial Court, and George
Smith lived in Park Square.

In 1835 the firm amalgamated with the newly-formed York-
shire District Banking Company.

In the Library of The Institute of Bankers, London, there
is a £5 note of the Leeds & Pontefract Bank, dated 1 Decem-
ber, 1828, which names the partners as John Perfect, William
Pertect and George Smith. In the same Library there is also
a copy of the agreement dated 24 June, 1835, made between
Francis Marris (who was the first Chairman of The Yorkshire
District Banking Company), William Perfect and John
Crowder Perfect, bankers of Pontefract, for the sale of the
goodwill and fixtures of the Pontefract Bank, including safe,
counter and desks.

68 MISCELLANY

The consideration for the sale, as stated in the agreement,
is given as follows: —

‘One hundred Shares at Prime cost, £500 on entry on 1 July
next, £500 on 1 July, 1836, and {500 on 1 January, 1837.’

In the Leeds Directory for 1834, the partners are given as
John Perfect, William Perfect and John Crowder Perfect. As
John Perfect was not a party to the agreement of 1835, for
the sale of the business to The Yorkshire District Banking
Company, it would appear that he had ceased to be a partner
in the business.

The BANK OF ENGLAND which was founded in 1694
opened an office in Leeds in 1827 at 13 Bank Street; the first
agent was Thomas Bischoff who lived at the Bank house which
faced into Boar Lane. In 1837 the Bank moved to 19 Albion
Street where they remained until 18600, when they moved to
No. 24 Albion Street and remained there until 1864, when they
moved to the present office at No. 1 South Parade.

The LEEDS BANKING COMPANY was founded in 1832,
the first directors being Robert Hudson, of Leeds, corn mer-
chant; John Bower, the elder, of Hunslet, oil and vitriol
manufacturer; John Howard, of Leeds, carpet manufacturer;
Robert Derham, of Leeds, worsted spinner; James Musgrave,
of Leeds, gentleman; Thomas Kirkby, of Leeds, gentleman;
and Henry Bentley, of Oulton, near Leeds, brewer; the Public
Officers were Thomas Kirkby and Robert Hudson. The
Trustees of the Company were James Musgrave and John
Bower. The first manager was John Smith, who came from
Scotland to take up this position.

James Musgrave and Thomas Kirkby were the private
directors, who were the only directors who had access to the
private accounts. The private directors had to be persons who
were not engaged in business.

The deed of settlement contained the following rather un-
usual provisions : —

‘No person shall in his own right, nor any firm as such (except
this Company) be allowed to hold, or be beneficially interested in
more than one hundred Shares, nor less than five Shares, at any
one time, in the Capital Stock of the Company.

_ ‘The Directors for the time being may purchase, and they are
hereby authorized and empowered, if they shall think fit to pur-
chase any shares in the capital stock of the Company on behalf
of and for the benefit of the Company; and whenever, by means

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 69

of any purchase made, or forfeiture accrued, any shares shall
become vested in the Directors, the Directors for the time being
may either retain such shares on behalf and for the benefit of the
Company, or, at their discretion, and without any concurrence
of the former owner thereof, or his representatives, sell and dis-
pose thereof by public sale or private contract, or otherwise act
therein as to them shall seem most expedient for the benefit of
the Company.

‘No Shareholder shall become a Shareholder in any other Bank-
ing Company to be established within eight miles of the Company’s
House, in Leeds.

‘No Shareholder shall be allowed to vote at any Meeting of
the Company by proxy, or otherwise than in his own proper
person.’

The qualification of a director was the holding of fifty shares
in his own right.

The capital of the Company was one million pounds, divided
into ten thousand shares of £100 each. 7,340 shares were
issued, on which £15 per share was paid up.

The first office of the Bank was at No. 16 Albion Street, and
it continued there until about 1860 when it moved to No. 22
Albion Street (at the corner of Bond Street), the premises now
occupied by the Yorkshire Post. This building was no doubt
erected by the Leeds Banking Company, as shortly before,
No. 22 Albion Street was the residence of Mr Thomas Pridgin
Teale, surgeon.

It is interesting to note that when the Bank was liquidated
in 1864, the value of the premises was put down in the state-
ment of affairs at £5,000, and when they were sold they real-
ised £5,041. 12s. od.

In the early days Albion Street was numbered up the west
side and down the east side, but about 1890 the street was re-
numbered, the odd numbers up the west side and the even
numbers up the east side.

The Bank seems to have enjoyed a very good reputation,
which later was not justified. In the week before the Bank sus-
pended payment in 1864, the shares were quoted at £46/ £48,
being at a premium of over 200 per cent. The year previous
to the suspension of payment, the profits were given as £44,033.
15s. 3d. and a dividend of 15 per cent was paid together with
a bonus of ro per cent free of tax, £10,000 was placed to the
reserve fund, making that item £90,000.

The authorised note issue under the Charter Act of 1844 was
£21,084.

7O MISCELLANY

In the announcement of the failure, the assets were stated
to be £1,045,749 which included £786,000 due from customers.
The liabilities were given as £754,000 which included deposits
amounting to £255,000 and current accounts £275,000.

The Times commenting on the failure said, ‘The prosperity
of trade in Leeds during the last four years has been such as
to render it the last district in which any commercial embarrass-
ment could have been expected’.

There was some controversy as to who should be appointed
the Liquidator; objection was taken to the appointment of
two gentlemen, on account of the fact that they were large
shareholders and creditors. After hearing the petition, the
Court appointed William Turquard, of the firm of Turquard,
Young & Co., of Tokenhouse Yard, London, to be Provisional
Liquidator. This was in accordance with an existing decision
of the Lords Justices, that a shareholder could not be allowed
to act as Liquidator. Later Mr Turquard was appointed
Liquidator.

In a circular from the Liquidator, dated 17 July, 1867,
addressed to the shareholders, the following particulars were
given: —

Liabilities—
Current accounts, deposits, notes issued & sundry
bankers : , , ; . £594.625 19 II
Creditors holding security ‘ : 4,720. 13. 7
Creditors for bill rediscounted . .. O55, 37 Fa sae
: 1,254,724 4 2
Deduct dividends paid at 14s. in f . . 858,911 16 II

£395,812. 7 +3

In his Report the Liquidator pointed out that first and second
calls at the rate of £110 per share had been made on the share-
holders (their liability was not limited), and that £525,637.
13s. 2d. had been received under this head, and there was
£58,506. 5s. od. outstanding. After allowing for outstanding
assets there was an estimated deficiency of £97,823. 4s. 3d.
and therefore it would be necessary to make further calls on
the shareholders. |

The liability on rediscounted bills was very considerable,
and the estimated deficiency on these and the bills on hand,
was £797,257. 19s. 5d., as against an estimate of £690,508.

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING yer

2s. 4d. in 1864, when the Bank failed. The very large loss on
bills which the Bank had discounted was, without doubt, due
to the fact that many of them were ‘Accommodation Bills’.

The statement of affairs gave an amount of £6,500 received
from Mr E, Greenland, who was Manager of the Bank for
over twenty years; this was for compromise of an action
against him.

The YORKSHIRE DISTRICT BANKING COMPANY
was founded in 1834; their first office was at No. 3 Albion
Street, but in 1836 they moved to their newly-erected premises
at West Bar (the site of the present premises of the Midland
Bank Ltd., City Square Branch). The first directors were
Francis Marris, of Roundhay; Isaac Spencer, of Plantation,
York; Thomas Smith, of Huntington Hall; James Gadsden,
of Hessle Grange; John Milner, of Halifax; William Vickers,
of Firs Hill, Sheffield; William Rand, of Horton, Bradford.

It will be noticed that the directors resided in or near
important centres of industry spread over Yorkshire. Isaac
Spencer and Matthew Edwards were registered as Public
Officers, the latter was also the first Manager of the Bank.
Francis Marris, John Burton, both of Roundhay, and New-
man Cash, of Leeds, were the first Trustees. Later the Board
was joined by James Audus, who was a pioneer of railway
development.

The capital was £1,000,000 in 50,000 shares of £20 each,
on which £5 per share was paid up. No person was allowed
to hold less than five shares. A director’s qualification was the
holding of fifty shares. The paid up capital was later increased
to £600,000; this was one of the largest in the county.

The Yorkshire District Banking Company seized the
opportunity presented by the decline of private banking, to
expand the field of its activity. Almost immediately the
business of John Perfect, William Perfect and George Smith,
of Pontefract and Leeds, was taken over, and the office in
Briggate was closed.

The weakness of private banking was becoming apparent
by offers of amalgamation which were being received from
numerous small banking firms. In 1835 Dresser & Co., of
Thirsk, who had been established some fifteen years, together
with Britain & Co. of the same town came into the under-
taking, thus reducing the inordinately large number of banks
in that town.

72 MISCELLANY

The purchase in 1834 of the Knaresborough firm of Coates,
Meek & Carter, established before 1804 helped to spread the
range of operations. The Bank soon began to employ its
large capital in actively pressing forward with the opening of
branches, until after three years it possessed twenty branches
as far apart as Richmond, Hull, Sheffield and Halifax.

The Bank gave every appearance of success, and weathered
with no apparent difficulty the storm of 1839. But all was not
as well as it seemed. A year later it was admitted that losses
exceeding £140,000 had arisen through the deception of the
General Manager. This was bad enough in itself, though it
might have been no vital matter to a Bank the size of the
Yorkshire District.

But worse was in store. The early ’forties were bad years in
Yorkshire banking; the failure in 1842 of the YORKSHIRE
AGRICULTURAL & COMMERCIAL BANK, an institution
with six branches, one of which was in Leeds, established in
the optimistic year of 1836, brought losses estimated at over
£250,000. The prestige of other banks was affected; the York-
shire District Bank, which had only just reduced the amount
paid up on its shares from £15 to £10 to meet the losses of
1840, found its position far from happy. Despite a public
assertion by the Board that ‘The Bank had never been in so
safe a position for many years as during the last six months’,
the directors recommended the appointment by the shareholders
of a Committee of Investigation. The Committee included the
Auditor and George Leeman, at that time a rising lawyer and
Clerk of the Peace of the East Riding of Yorkshire; he was
also of distinction in the history of railway finance, as well as
of bank legislation.

The Report of the Committee issued in 1843 revealed a
disastrous state of affairs arising from mismanagement almost
from the first day of business. The total loss was estimated
at £507,000. It will be seen that this left very little of the paid
up capital. Nevertheless the Committee was of the opinion
‘that with exercise of ordinary prudence the Yorkshire District
Bank would yield a very handsome profit to its proprietary’.

It is significant that the heaviest losses of the Bank occurred
at Leeds, the centre of a rapidly growing district deeply in-
volved in wool and iron, and also the centre of the Bank’s
activities. |

Following the recommendations of the Committee of

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING To

Investigation, the Bank was liquidated, a new Bank being
formed under the title of the YORKSHIRE BANKING
COMPANY, to take over the portion of the business that was
good and profitable. No loss fell on the depositors or note
holders, but three-quarters of the paid up capital was lost.

On the 6 July, 1843, business was resumed under the new
name of the Yorkshire Banking Company with a fresh
directorate. The Chairman was James Audus, of Headingley
and Selby, and with him were associated John Howard, John
Clapham and George Hammond, all of Leeds, and Abraham
Hirst, of Huddersfield. John Howard and Henry Dresser were
registered as the Public Officers. The Trustees were John
Howard and John Clapham.

The capital was £500,000 in 20,000 shares of £25 each, on
which £10. Ios, od. was paid up. The qualification of a director
was the holding of 50 shares.

The first Manager was Henry Dresser, son of Joseph Dresser
of Topcliffe Mill, who was the founder of the banking firm of
Dresser & Co., of Thirsk.

Although the paid up capital of the Bank stood at only
about £150,000, a bare quarter of the original sum, the branch
system was continued. Thirteen branches and twelve agencies,
together with their staffs, were retained. After this sobering
experience the Bank observed a degree of caution, that restored
lost prestige in a remarkably short time. The first accounts of
the new Bank, dated December 1844, showed deposits exceed-
ing £600,000 and a note circulation of over £100,000. Under
the Charter Act of 1844 the authorised note issue was £122,532.

In 1898 they moved to temporary premises at No. 2 East
Parade, while their Head Office was being rebuilt.

About 1880 the Bank was registered as a Company with
limited liability.

In 1901, when the directors were Sir James Kitson, M.P..,
Sir James T. Woodhouse, M.P., James Edward Willans and
George Whitehead, the Bank amalgamated with the London
City & Midland Bank Ltd. At the time of the amalgamation
the paid up capital of the Yorkshire Banking Company was
£375,000, the reserve fund £325,000, notes in circulation
£89,000, deposits £4,854,000, and advances £2,807,000.

Two Leeds Banks which amalgamated in r890 with the
Birmingham & Midland Bank Ltd. were the EXCHANGE &
DISCOUNT BANK LTD. and the LEEDS & COUNTY BANK
LED:

74 MISCELLANY

The EXCHANGE & DISCOUNT BANK LTD. was
founded by John James Cousins, He was a West Country
man; after three years’ service in a Bristol bank, he left to
become a commercial traveller, and later became a partner in
the firm of Little, Cousins & Leach, woollen merchants of
Leeds, the forerunners of the present firm of David Little &
Co. Ltd. In 1860 he again turned his attention to banking
and started business on his own account with a capital of only
£8,000. The temporary office, which was at No. 15 Park Row,
was so small that it was usual for a second customer to wait
outside. |

In 1862 he was joined by Hammond Allen, of Bideford,
Devon, and the title of the firm became Cousins, Allen & Co.
The following advertisement in the Leeds Mercury on Monday,
to October, 1864, throws a light on banking at that time: —

Cousins, Allen & Co., Bankers, Leeds.
Temporary Premises, No. 15 Park Row, Leeds.
London Agents — London & Westminster Bank.
Terms of business across the counter.
Acceptances advised 2s. 6d. per cent.
Advising money for payment in London 2s. 6d. per cent.
London Cheques cashed at 2s. per cent, or 1o days drafts free,
Country Cheques cashed at 2s. 6d. per cent, or ro days drafts free.
Scotch and Irish Cheques cashed at 5s. per cent, or 21 days drafts
free.
First Class Bills discounted at a low rate.
£5 per cent Interest allowed on Deposits.
Current Accounts: If minimum balance be kept, free of charge.
Hours of Business 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturdays 10 to 4.

In 1866 the firm took advantage of the 1856 Act, and a
limited company was formed under the title of Exchange &
Discount Bank Ltd. Their office was at No. 38 Park Row;
the Company had a nominal capital of £200,000, John J.
Cousins remaining as principal, holding two-thirds of the
capital. The other directors were Hammond Allen, Emmanuel
Bradley, Thomas Dawson, David Little and D. W. McCarthy.

Small as it was, the Bank had offices in Bradford and Hull.
As the name suggests, one of the chief items of business was
bill discounting and their balance sheet of 31 December, 1881,
gives bills-on-hand as £157,201. 13s. 4d., advances £180,643.
7s. 4d., paid up capital £100,000, reserve fund £54,000,
deposits and current accounts £187,073. 11s. 5d., drafts-in-
circulation £44,969. 8s. od.

When the Bank amalgamated with the BIRMINGHAM &

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING Fos

MIDLAND BANK in 18g0 the deposits had increased to
£288,000, On the amalgamation, J. J. Cousins joined the
Board of the Birmingham & Midland Bank Ltd. Shortly after-
wards the business was transferred from No. 38 Park Row
to the premises used by the Leeds and County Bank Ltd.

The LEEDS & COUNTY BANK LTD. was formed in 1862
and grew out of another bank formed a year earlier under the
name of the Joint Stock Banking Company (of Pontefract,
Wakefield and Goole); thus beginning well on in the century,
the Bank was able to profit by the pioneer experience of earlier
institutions, and to benefit from improved communications,
so that it soon added to the Head Office at No. 4 Park Row
(which now forms part of the premises of Marshall & Snel-
grove), a few branches in the immediate neighbourhood of
Leeds. The first directors were Isaac Burkill, Joseph Cliff,
Thomas Coulson, Thomas Willington George, Roger Hurst,
Edward Irwin, Richard Moxon, Obadiah Nussey and William
Peel.

The balance sheet of 1879 gave the paid up capital as
£230,000, reserve fund £17,000, deposits £853,000, advances,
bills, cash on hand £1,081,o00. At that time they had five
branches. In 1882 the paid up capital was reduced to £92,000
to meet losses, while the directors, in order to reduce expenses,
declined to accept more than one half of the fees that had been
voted to them.

The banks in the specialised wool centres complained of the
slackness of trade, and although they felt the pressure of 1875
less intensely than those more particularly concerned with the
iron and steel industry, they did not wholly avoid loss.

In 1890 they amalgamated with the BIRMINGHAM &
MIDLAND BANK LTD. At the Amalgamation Meeting it
was stated by the Chairman of the Leeds & County Bank that
the general reason for the amalgamation, was the tendency
towards the formation of large and powerful combinations
which had almost become a necessity to meet the calls made
upon them in recent years by the large growth in the size of
manufacturing and mercantile firms. Nevertheless a particular
cause affecting this Bank was the difficulties of eight years
earlier that had taken a heavy toll in the reduced capital and
diminished confidence.

In 1891 the Birmingham & Midland Bank Ltd. amalgamated
with the Central Bank of London Ltd., under the title of the

76 MISCELLANY

London & Midland Bank Ltd. In 1898, on amalgamation with
the City Bank Ltd., the name was changed to the LONDON
CITY & MIDLAND BANK LTD:

Mr Edward H. Holden, who later was created a baronet,
negotiated these amalgamations. He later became the Chair-
man of the Bank, and was one of the leading men in the
banking world of that day.

Another bank with offices in Leeds, which, by amalgama-
tion, became part of the Midland Bank Ltd. was the YORK
CITY & COUNTY BANK, which was founded at York in
1830, when that City possessed only two private banks and
one savings bank. The first directors were: Harry Croft, of
Stillington; Thomas Price, of Clementhorpe, York; Thomas
Barstow, of Naburn; Thomas Laycock, of Appleton Roebuck;
Benjamin Horner, of York; Thomas Backhouse, of York;
Robert Waller, of York. The Chairman was Thomas Price,
and the Public Officers were: Thomas Price and Thomas
Backhouse.

The nominal capital was £500,000 in 5,000 shares of £100
each.

With a paid up capital of only £22,000 the Bank soon began
to open branches. In the first year an office was opened at
Malton, and the deed of settlement was altered to permit the
establishment of branches more than 25 miles from York (the
limit inserted in the original document). In 1833 the business
of Fletcher, Stubbs & Scott, of Boroughbridge, founded in
1823, was absorbed; four years later Farrar, Williamson &
Co., of Ripon, founded in 1801, was taken over; Williamsons
were the pioneers of the varnish trade of that city. In 1830
Farrar, Williamson & Co. had an office in Albion Street,
Leeds, but it was only open for a short time. Other banks
taken over were Frankland & Wilkinson, of Whitby, who
were absorbed in 1845; and (in 1846) Richardson, Holt &
Co., who were established in 1816, with offices at Whitby and
Pickering.

After being established for fifteen years the Bank had eight
offices and two agencies, mainly obtained by amalgamation
with private banks, and in this way they obtained established
business connections in different towns. These banks usually
brought with them trained staffs, and the earlier amalgama-
tions also brought a note circulation. In 1873 the Thirsk
Branch of Jonathan Backhouse & Co., founded in 1774, was

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING To,

purchased. Five years later, Harding & Co., founded in 1802,
of Bridlington and Driffield (known as the Burlington Bank),
was taken over. In 1816 the Burlington Bank had an office
in Leeds, their address being given as ‘The Back of Park
Row’; this was the old name for Basinghall Street. The Leeds
business was under the name of Thompson, Elam & Co.,
branch of the Burlington Bank, but the office was only open
for a few years. In 1883, the Darlington District Joint Stock
Banking Co. was taken over. In 1897 the Barnsley Banking
Co. Ltd., which was founded in 1832, was absorbed, and in
tgo1 the Cumberland Union Banking Co., which was estab-
lished in 1829, was taken over.

Under the Charter Act of 1844 the Bank had an authorised
note issue of £94,605.

Early in the ’seventies, the York City & County Bank Ltd.
and the Yorkshire Banking Co., both of whom had offices in
Middlesbrough, were lending considerable amounts to finance
the growing steel industry in that town, and in 1875 an agree-
ment was arrived at whereby combined advances were made
by the two banks to the industry. For about three years the
Banks appear to have operated the steel works with some
success, but doubtless they were relieved when a large com-
bine purchased the whole of the plant.

The Leeds Office of the York City & County Bank Ltd. was
opened about 1886, at 33 Park Row, and in 1893 moved to
No. 97 Albion Street, while the Park Row premises were being
rebuilt. Also in that year the name of the Bank was changed
mo thesyORK CITY & BANKING COMPANY LYD.

In 1909 the Bank was taken over by the London Joint Stock
Bank Ltd., who in 1918 amalgamated with the London City &
Midland Bank Ltd., under the title of the London Joint
City & Midland Bank Ltd., and, in 1923, the name was changed
to MIDLAND BANK LTD.

ie wWveSl RIDING UNION-~ BANKING: CO; LID:
founded in 1832, opened an office in Leeds in 1898 at 18 Park
Row. Three years later they moved to No. 2 East Parade
while their premises in Park Row were being rebuilt. In 1902
they amalgamated with the Lancashire & Yorkshire Bank Ltd.,
and in 1928 this Bank was taken over by the Bank of Liver-
pool & Martins Ltd. The year following the name was changed
to Martins Bank Ltd. and soon afterwards they moved to their
present premises, No. 30 Park Row, Leeds.

78 MISCELLANY

The HALIFAX COMMERCIAL BANKING CO. LTD.
was founded in 1810; they opened a branch in Leeds in 1899
in the Yorkshire Post Buildings, Albion Street, and three years
later they moved to No. 14 Park Row. In 1919 they amalgam-
ated with the Bank of Liverpool & Martins Ltd., and in 1927
the business was transferred to No. 30 Park Row, Leeds.

The EQUITABLE BANK LTD. (founded in rgo00 under
the name of the Halifax Equitable Bank Ltd.) opened a branch
in 1927 at No. 32 Albion Street, and in the same year amal-
gamated with the Bank of Liverpool & Martins Ltd. Soon
afterwards the business was transferred to No. 30 Park Row,
Leéde:

The YORK UNION BANKING COMPANY LTD., founded
in 1833, opened a branch in rgor at No. 40 Park Row, and
in the following year amalgamated with Barclay & Co. Ltd.
In 1917 the name was changed to Barclays Bank Ltd.

About 1790 Edmund Peckover, who was a wool-stapler in
Bradford also carried on a banking business, and in 1804 he
was joined by Charles Harris, Henry Harris and Alfred Harris,
the business being carried on under the name of Peckover,
Harris & Co. In 1823 the partners were Charles Harris, Henry
Harris and Alfred Harris, and the firm was known as the
Bradford Old Bank. In 1864 the business was made into a
limited company under the name of the BRADFORD OLD
BANK LTD. In 1905 they opened a branch in Leeds at No. 23
Park Row, and two years later amalgamated with the Birming-
ham District & Counties Bank Ltd. under the name of the
United Counties Bank Ltd. In 1910 they moved to No. 16
Park Row, and in 1916 they amalgamated with BARCLAY &
CO. LTD. and soon afterwards moved to their other office at
No. 40 Park Row.

The NORTHERN & CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
which was founded in 1834, opened an office in that year at
No. 43 Albion Street, Leeds, under the management of James
Scarth. In 1837 the Bank became embarrassed, and was wound
up with the assistance of the Bank of England. At the time
of the failure they had forty branches, which seems very
remarkable considering their short life.

The YORKSHIRE AGRICULTURAL & COMMERCIAL
BANKING COMPANY was founded in 1836 with offices at
Whitby, Malton, &c. After the winding up of the Northern &
Central Bank of England they opened a branch in the premises

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 79

which had been used by the latter Bank at No. 43 Albion
Street. By 1839 they had removed to No. 59 Albion Street
where they remained until the Bank failed in 1842.

The BANK OF DEPOSIT, whose Head Office was at Pall
Mall East, London, was established in 1844, wih a capital of
£100,000, In 1861 they had an office at No. 17 Commercial
Street, but it was only open for a short time.

The following is an extract from their advertisement : —

Parties desirous of Investing Money are requested to examine
the Plan of The Bank of Deposit, by which a high rate of Interest
may be obtained with ample security.

Deposits made by Special Agreement may be withdrawn without
notice.

Interest is payable in January and July.

Peter Morrison, Managing Director.
Leeds Branch: No. 17 Commercial Street.
Charles Smithies, Manager.

Forms for opening Accounts, and other Information, furnished

free on application.

‘The actual formation of the YORKSHIRE PENNY BANK*®
for practical business purposes dates from 1 May, 1859, but
some years prior to this date the founder, the late Colonel
Edward Akroyd, J.P., of Halifax, had thought and worked
to promote the scheme’’ which he had in mind. The firm in
which he was a partner employed a large number of ‘hands’
and it was his pleasure to take a practical personal interest
in all that concerned their welfare. ‘It was a bold idea on the
part of Colonel Akroyd to think that he could bid for the con-
fidence of the people and get it, even to the extent of trusting
him with their money.’*”

‘In May 1856 a pamphlet was printed and circulated amongst
the nobility and leading gentry of the County setting forth the
Colonel’s views.’'* ‘Speaking of the necessity for a Guarantee
Fund, which the Colonel suggested might be subscribed in
1,000 notes of £10 each, and might be limited in its duration,
he said: ‘In such a manner can the monied classes best evi-
dence the sincerity of their desire to benefit the industrial
Glasses - 7”

* This account reproduces the information given in H. B. Sellers, Memoranda

from a notebook on the Yorkshire Penny Bank, Leeds, Printed for private
circulation, 1909. It is printed by kind permission of the Yorkshire Penny Bank
Ltd

DIG «Se
VEDI: poh
S610 220.
LOU ee O.

SO MISCELLANY .-

‘Originally the scheme embodied not only the idea of a Penny
Bank, but also that of a Provident Society.’’’ The two schemes
were to be worked separately, though it was thought prob-
able that the funds of the Bank would be used to help the
Provident Society.

A meeting was held in the Philosophical Hall, Leeds, on
17 November, 1856, and a large number of influential gentle-
men were present. Of the first Committee of Management that
was elected, the following officers were appointed: President:
the Hon. Edwin Laseelles.. Vice-Presidents: Colonel’ FE.
Akroyd and Mr E. B. Wheatly Balme. Trustees: Colonel E.
Akroyd, Mr G. S. Beecroft, Judge Stansfeld, Mr F. F. White-
head and Mr H. W. Wickham. On 27 November, 1856, Mr
William Magson Nelson was appointed Secretary to the Com-
mittee:

On 20 December, 1858, Mr Peter Bent was appointed
Accountant (later he became General Manager of the Bank).
His duties were to audit the books of branches and to attend
to the correspondence. Perhaps no one, excepting the founder,
had so much to do with the great success of the scheme as Mr
Bent. On Mr Nelson’s retirement he was appointed Secretary.

‘From 1856 to 1858 the preliminary correspondence and
business had been conducted at the Secretary’s own house in
Skinner Lane, Leeds, but now that matters had assumed a
concrete form it was thought necessary that rooms for a
permanent Central Office should be engaged, and the house
formerly occupied by and belonging to Dr Heaton at No. 2 East
Parade, Leeds, was rented. The rooms on the ground floor
were retained for the Bank purposes, and the remainder was
let off to the Church Institute. In a few years time, when
funds permitted, the Committee incurred what would then be
considered an enormous expenditure, the premises being pur-
chased at a cost of £4,310. There appears to have been a
certain amount of uneasiness at the bold venture which had
been made in buying the premises.’** At the back of the house
was a large garden which extended to what is now Park Cross
Street. The Committee urged the Secretary to sell this land,
and it was eventually sold.

Considerable consternation was caused by the introduction
of the Savings Bank Act of 1863. Amongst other provisions

DIG. 59.
NOI, iy.

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING one

which the Act contained was one repealing almost entirely all
the previous Friendly Society Acts, under which the Penny
Savings’ Bank was formed, thus rendering necessary a com-
plete reconsideration of the position. After the question had
been discussed at various Board Meetings a Committee was
appointed with a view to taking Counsel’s opinion on the
matters at issue. Of the three courses suggested, it was decided
to register the Yorkshire Penny Savings Bank as a company
limited by guarantee (it not being established for making profit)
under the provisions of the Joint Stock Companies Acts of 1862
and 1867. A certificate of incorporation was granted, dated
23 January 1871, and, as the Company was not established for
making of profit, it was licensed to omit the word ‘Limited’
from its title. It was, however, a requirement of the Board of
Trade that the word ‘Savings’ which had hitherto been used
in the title of the Bank should henceforth be discontinued,
presumably with the intention of distinguishing it from
Trustees’ Savings Banks registered under the Act of 1863. ‘On
1 December, 1865, the Central Office at No. 2 East Parade
was opened as a daily branch.’*”

‘On the 12 November, 1872, a Committee recommended to
the Board that the practice should be adopted of allowing
depositors to withdraw their money by means of cheques.’*®

When the Free Education Act came into force in 1891, a
circular suggested that parents who had hitherto been paying
‘School pence’ for the education of their children and could
afford to continue so doing, should in future deposit the money
in the Yorkshire Penny Bank. 150,000 copies of the circular
were sent out, and this move led to the formation of the “School
Transfer Banks’.

The new Head Office in Infirmary Street was opened by the
Duke of Devonshire on 17 August, 1894.

In 1911 when the total of deposits was over £18 millions,
the size of the business had outgrown the type of the constitu-
tion, and it was clear that modernization was essential. In
these circumstances Sir Edward Holden as Chairman of the
London City & Midland Bank Ltd., which by amalgamation
had acquired a very strong position in Yorkshire, took the
lead in reform. After energetic canvassing of various schemes,
agreement was at last reached. With the co-operation of the

WS Ot. Ae
6 Thid., 62.

$2 MISCELLANY

Bank of England, a new limited company was formed, of
which the whole of the share capital was held by a group of
eleven banks.

The LONDON & NORTHERN BANK LTD. of Newcastle
upon Tyne was founded in 1862; in the year following they
opened an office at No. 1 Commercial Street, Leeds, but this
was only open for about a year. When this Bank was taken
over by the Midland Banking Co. Ltd. in 1864, the business
was transferred to No. 22 Albion Street, which had formerly
been used by the Leeds Banking Company.

In the Leeds Mercury for Saturday, 11 February, 1865,
there is published under the ‘Returns pursuant to 7 & 8 Vic.
c. 32’ a list of their shareholders for the previous year. It also
shows that they had offices at Newcastle upon Tyne, Leeds,
Huddersfield, Sheffield, Morpeth, Alnwick and Hexham.

It is interesting to note that when the Leeds Joint Stock
Bank Ltd. changed their name in 1898, they took the name
of London & Northern Bank Ltd., but they had no connection
with the earlier Bank of the same name.

The MIDLAND BANKING CO. LTD., founded in 1863
(not to be confused with the Midland Bank Ltd.) as mentioned
above, had their office at No. 22 Albion Street and continued
there until after they amalgamated with the Birmingham,
Dudley & District Banking Co. Ltd. in 1881. Soon after the
amalgamation the Leeds office was closed.

The Midland Banking Co. Ltd. had a subscribed capital of
41,000,000, and in 1872 the paid up capital was £200,000
and the reserve fund was £20,000. There were 640 share-
holders. The chief office was at 38 New Broad Street, London.
They had 22 branches as far apart as Leeds, Lincoln, Peter-
borough, Hereford, Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury.

The BANK OF LEEDS LTD. was founded in 1864, the
year that the Leeds Banking Company suspended payment.
Their office was at No. 24 Albion Street, in the premises that
had been used by the Bank of England. In the early days we
often find that when a bank failed a new bank would be
formed, or a bank from another town would open a branch
to fill the gap that had been created, and so it is not surpris-
ing to find that the Bank of Leeds Ltd. opened their office only
a few doors away from the Leeds Banking Company.

In 1878 they amalgamated with the National Provincial
Bank of England Ltd., which was founded in 1833. On

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 83

amalgamation with the Union of London & Smiths Bank Ltd.
in 1918, the title became the National Provincial & Union
Bank of England Ltd., and in 1924 the name was changed
to the National Provincial Bank Ltd.

Soon after the Midland Banking Co. Ltd. closed their office
at No. 22 Albion Street, the National Provincial Bank of
England Ltd. moved into that building, and in the re-number-
ing of Albion Street it was changed to No. 51. They remained
there until 1898, when they moved to their present premises
at No. 2 Park Row.

Other Banks with offices in Leeds which by amalgamation
became part of the National Provincial Bank Ltd., were the
LONDON & YORKSHIRE BANK LTD., founded in 1872
(they opened an office at No. 22 Boar Lane in 1877, and were
taken over by the Union of London & Smiths Bank Ltd. in
1903), and the LEEDS JOINT STOCK BANK LTD., which
was founded in 1891, and had an office at No. 3 Park Row,
which, for its size, was architecturally a very fine building. In
1898 the name of the Bank was changed to the LONDON &
NORTHERN BANK LTD. In the year following they sus-
pended payment. The business was taken over by the Bradford
District Bank Ltd.; this Bank amalgamated with the National
Provincial & Union Bank of England Ltd. in 1919. Later
the dividing wall was removed, and the portion which had
been the office of the Leeds Joint Stock Bank Ltd. was made
the entrance for the rearranged offices of Nos. 2 and 3 Park
Row. :

The NATIONAL MERCANTILE BANK LTD. was founded
in 1867, and their chief office was in Russell Street, London.
In 1881 they had an office at No. 36 Park Square, Leeds, but
it was only open for a short time, as the Bank was wound up
in that year.

The CHARING CROSS BANK LTD., which was founded
in 1870, opened a branch in 1907, at No. to East Parade,
Leeds. The Bank suspended payment in IgI0o.

FARROW’S BANK LTD., which was founded in 1907,
opened a branch in 1909 at No. 68 Vicar Lane, Leeds. The
Bank suspended payment in 1920.

LEWIS’S BANK LTD. which was founded in 1909, opened
a branch about 1930 in the Headrow Stores of Lewis’s (Leeds)
Ate)

The DISTRICT BANK LTD. was founded in 1829 under

84 MISCELLANY

the name of Manchester & Liverpool District Bank Ltd. The
name was changed in 1924. In 1938 they opened a branch at
No. 27 Park Row, Leeds.

LEEDS SKYRAC & MORLEY SAVINGS BANK was
established in 1818. In Baines’s Directory of the West Riding
for 1822, p. 130, the following report is given: —

‘This Institution, which is intended for the safe custody and
the increase of small savings belonging to the labouring and
industrious classes, resident either within the Borough of Leeds,
the Wapontakes of Skyrac and Morley or elsewhere, was estab-
lished at Leeds in January 1818, under the sanction of an Act of
Parliament passed in 57 Geo. II]. The management of its con-
cerns is vested in two Patrons, a President, a Vice-President, ten
Trustees, a Treasurer, thirty-six Directors and a Secretary. The
Deposits are vested in Government Securities only, which, to the
amount of one shilling and upwards are received. When Deposits
amounted to 12s. 6d. the depositors received for interest on that
sum one half penny per month or 4 per cent per annum, on any
sum they may have deposited. No depositor to vest more than
foo the first year, nor more than £50 any succeeding year. The
interest is paid annually on the first banking day after the 15
April or the 15 October, and if not called for, it is suffered to
accumulate for the benefit of the depositor.

. ‘The Bank is in Bank Street, Boar Lane, and attendance is
given every Tuesday and Saturday [the Market Days] from 12
to 4 past 1 o'clock, Mr Tanner, Secretary. This institution is in
a flourishing condition, as will be seen from the following report
made in April last :—

‘Sixth half yearly Report of the progress of the Leeds, Skyrac &
Morley Savings Bank, to 15 April, 1821 :—

‘1062 Accounts have been opened since the commencement of
the Institution in February 1818 upon which 3,051 deposits have
been made amounting to the sum of £32,113. 8s. 6d.

‘1056 repayments have been made to depositors amounting to
the sum of £11,478. 13s. rto$d.

“There are now 701 open accounts (being an increase of 122
since the last Report) and the amount of deposits thereon, includ-
ing the accumulation of interest for the benefit of the depositors,
amounts to the sum of £22,472. 10s. 84d.

‘The amount of Deposits and Interest thereon to 15 October,
1820, was £18,293. Ios. o4d.

Increase ‘from 15 ‘October, 1820, to 15 *April, “1824, “f4ea76.
ToS) /imd).’

Their first office was at No. rr Bank Street, where Tanner &
Young carried on business as Public Accountants and Agents.
When the Bank of England moved to Albion Street in 1837,
the Leeds Skyrac & Morley Savings Bank moved to No. 13

TWO HUNDRED YEARS OF BANKING 85

Bank Street, and in 1839 they moved to their present premises
Nov 30+ Bend) Street;

Largely through the instrumentality of Charles William
Sikes who was a member of the staff of the Huddersfield Bank-
ing Co. Ltd., The POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK was
established in 1860. Mr Sikes was knighted in 1881 in recogni-
tion of his services. The first branch in Leeds was opened soon
after the establishment of the Bank.

The DISTRICT SAVINGS BANK had an office at No. 22
Bond Street in 1861, but it was only open for a short time.

During the last century a number of new banks were founded
in Leeds, some of which only continued for a short time,
amongst which were the following: —

In 1809 SAWER, BAILEY & CO. had an office in Commer-
cial Street. Thomas Bailey who was a partner lived on the
Bank premises. The only book reference I have been able to
trace respecting this firm is in the 1809 Directory. The partner-
ship does not appear to have lasted very long, as all their notes
which I have seen are dated 1809, and the name ‘Sawer’ is
deleted.

A short time before Messrs. Perfect amalgamated with the
Yorkshire District Banking Company, George Smith, who had
been a partner in Perfects’ Bank, started a new bank at No. 5
Commercial Street, under the name of GEORGE SMITH &
SON, the partners were George Smith, who was then residing
at No. 1 Hanover Square, and George Smith, Junior, who re-
sided at Wrangthorn Terrace, Woodhouse. In 1835 the firm
became ine LEEDS & WEST RIDING: JOINT: STOCK
BANKING COMPANY, and the business was moved to No.
42 Briggate; George Smith, Junior, became the Manager, but
this Bank had only a short life, and it was dissolved in 1846.
At a meeting held at the Royal Hotel, the liabilities were stated
to be £350,000 and the assets £300,000.

BYWATER, CHARLESWORTH & CO. commenced busi-
ness in 1827 at No. 14 Commercial Street, the partners were
John Rainforth Bywater, Edward Charlesworth and Thomas
Motley. In 1836 the business was transferred to the Leeds
Commercial Joint Stock Bank, with their office at No. 33
Commercial Street. The partners in the old Bank became the
first directors of the new Bank, which was dissolved in 1847.

John Holmes & Co., known as the LEEDS MERCANTILE
BANK, were in business from about 1866 to 1875. Their office

86 MISCELLANY

was first at No. 37 Boar Lane, and later at No. 22 Boar Lane.
The partners were John Holmes, of Hunslet; George Exley,
of Middleton; and James Ramsden, of Lofthouse.

Wilkinson & Kendall, known as the LEEDS BOROUGH
BANK, was founded in 1870, their office was at No. 11 Albion
Street. The senior partner was Thomas Jowett Wilkinson, who
resided at Spring Hill, Headingley; he was also a partner in
J. & T. Wilkinson, gold- and silversmiths, of No. 54 Briggate.
The Bank was discontinued in 1879.

HYDES, BAGLEY~@CO., of No. 46 Boar Lane, \com-
menced business in 1874. The partners were John Hydes, of
Farrar House, Hunslet; and Thomas Bagley, of Pool. About
three years later the firm became Bagley, Willans & Co. The
partners being Thomas Bagley and William Willans, of Wood-
house Hill, Hunslet. The business was discontinued in 1894.

In preparing this article, I acknowledge the help that I have
received from the following publications : —
‘A Hundred Years of Joint Stock Banking’, by W. F.
Crick and J. E. Wadsworth (1936);
‘The Westminster Bank Through a Century’, by Professor
f (E. (Gregory, 2 xls, (1936);
‘Memoranda from a Note Book on the Yorkshire Penny
Bank’, by H. B. Sellers (1909); and

‘Banker’s Almanac and Year Book’, published by
Thomas Skinner & Co.

Hii i

cig

ater

nen apa

\

/
s

(icc

_ PT
gi? 3

Yen
Lee’

ha oh feet - eo. ik Mt oo Bt
7 * a #44 “og 4, mes

:
Fin to Mae A i i ole |

al ne: pene! sty See a

¥ y seis 4
fawicati ye

7 p a hel

tg th( Soe
;

= ’ ;
Ane, Ratan Su
es eae i)
. rae ohive .
ae ra
- W

- - ‘ a od
= My Pee vk
as e ehh ee
a al a -
; AE ; 4
i] +
a | i as
r
res
e
«
/
1
‘
Ca
we

4

ane Nat As nai aa

-

ve

a _ “4 eee ;
ee aee ae

aye

eal a ae.
4° int i ih
PAR

5

va :
Wf :
Ww

>

a

EEEDS AND JHE. FACTORY, REFORM
MOVEMENT

By J. T. WARD

THE OUTLINES of the history of the agitation for the legislative
reform of working conditions and hours in the nineteenth
century textile industries have been sketched by several writers.
But the local organisations on which the Factory Movement
was based during the fourth and fifth decades of the century
have never been examined. These groups, periodically active
for nearly twenty years, brought together a strange assortment
of agitators, whose motives varied from humanitarian piety to
revolutionary fervour. Leeds played a considerable part in the
campaign. The greatest personality in the Movement, Richard
Oastler, was a Leeds man, born in S, Peter’s Square in 1789
and buried at S. Stephen’s, Kirkstall, in 1861; his early career
was largely spent in Leeds, and from 1820 to 1838 he was the
steward of Thomas Thornhill’s estates at Fixby, near Hudders-
field, and at Calverley. Oastler’s Leeds friends were to be of
some importance in the history of the Factory Movement.

i

The factory agitation arose as a result of Oastler’s famous
letter on ‘‘Yorkshire Slavery’’, which appeared in the Leeds
Mercury of 16 October, 1830.* This exposure of the disgraceful
conditions in “‘those magazines of British infantile slavery
the worsted mills in the town and neighbourhood of Bradford’’
provoked a long argument in the Yorkshire Press through the
winter of 1830, over labour in various parts of the West Riding.
_ Edward Baines, the owner-editor of the Mercury, became
increasingly embarrassed by attacks on his Whig-Liberal
manufacturing friends.” But the Leeds Radicals, already break-
ing past alliances with the town Whigs, hailed Oastler’s literary

* Reprinted in Cecil Driver, Tory Radical: the Life of Richard Oastler (1946),

42-44.

?On Baines (1774-1848), see (Sir) E. Baines, jr., The Life of Edward Baines
(1851); on the contemporary Leeds Press, see F. Beckwith, ‘Introductory Account
of the Leeds Intelligencer’, Thoresby Soc. Publications, XL (1955), i-lvi.

88 MISCELLANY

campaign with delight. Even before the publication of the first
letter, the Radical John Smithson had declared, at a public
meeting held in the Court House on 23 September, ““to consider
the propriety of addressing the French People on the subject
of their recent ‘Glorious’ Revolution’’:
For my own part, I consider slavery to be the condition in which
the weak are placed by the strong; and whether we apply this to
the misfortunes of Africa, the drudgery of Europe, or the factories

of Leeds, the principle is the same, and the cause to be found in,
and only in, the lamentable ignorance of the working classes.

Smithson held that negro slavery had not been introduced into
England simply because ‘‘white slaves could be hired cheaper,
and thrown upon the parishes when they were not wanted’’.®
Consequently, the Leeds Radicals were quick to praise Oastler’s
~ vety able letter “,

Against a background of rising excitement over Parliament-
ary Reform and bitter strikes among woollen workers, John
Cam Hobhouse promised, early in 1831, to introduce a Bill
to limit children’s labour in the textile industries to 66 hours
per week (excluding mealtimes). After initially supporting this
plan, Baines joined the hostile masters and refused further
letters from Oastler. This alignment of the leading Liberal
journal with the opposition to factory reform was countered
by declarations of support for Oastler by Robert Perring’s
Tory Leeds Intelugencer and John Foster’s Radical Leeds
Patriot.* Thus began the strange alliance of Right and Left
against the dominant liberalism of the factory masters. And
when the worsted manufacturers of Bradford and Halifax
formed organisations to oppose any legislative interference,
and John Marshall, the great Leeds flax master,’ canvassed
against Hobhouse at Westminster, the Yorkshire workmen and
their allies started to form their own ‘‘Short Time Committees’’
to aid the cause of factory reform. The first of the operatives’
groups were founded at Huddersfield and Leeds in March, 1831.

The majority of the early members of the Leeds Short Time
Committee came from the ranks of the workmen and trades-

5 J. Smithson, The Substance of a Speech delivered ... on Thursday, September
23vda, 1830 (1830), 5-6.

“Leeds Mercury, February-March, 1831, passim; Leeds Intelligencer, 24 March,
Leeds Patriot, 26 March.

5 On Marshall (1765-1845), flax-spinner of Holbeck and Shrewsbury, Cumbrian
landowner and M.P. for Yorkshire, 1826-30, see R. V. Taylor, Biographia Leod-

iensis (1865), 411-15; H. R. F. Bourne, English Merchants (1866), II, 223-29; W. G.
Rimmer, Marshalls of Leeds, flax spinners, 1788-1886 (1960).

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT 89

men who were already associated with various Radical causes.
The chairman was a woollen worker, one John Hammond,
who produced a cogent reply to the masters’ case. He frankly
admitted that a working day of 114 hours for children would
automatically restrict adult workers to the same period —
“‘hence the objection of the manufacturer and, so far as we
are concerned, our support of the Bill’’.° But in addition to
publicising their cause in the Press and collecting evidence for
their Parliamentary champions, the committees soon started to
organise public meetings. Bradford reformers held the first such
demonstration — a meeting of overlookers — on 11 April, and
Leeds followed three days later with a conference of delegates
from all the local textile mills, held in the committee’s head-
quarters at the Union Inn. A local petition was got up in support
of Hobhouse’s proposal, and some 10,000 signatures were ob-
tained.’

Oastler was eventually persuaded to accept the leadership of
the extending movement. ‘‘Ultra Tory though he is in name’’,
affirmed the Patriot, ‘‘he possesses genuine Radical feelings,
or in other words is a real friend to the best interests of the
country’’. Oastler became the principal planner and publicist
of the Movement’s policy. During the General Election
campaign of April and May he issued an open appeal To the
Working Classes of the West Riding, advocating a ten hours’
working day.* This call was enthusiastically taken up, and re-
mained the reformers’ policy for sixteen years. But although
Oastler’s leadership was even more definitely recognised, at the
request of the Huddersfield committee, in June,’ each local
committee remained largely autonomous, evolving its own
methods and recruiting members in its own fashion.

The first campaign for legislative action was unsuccessful. In
response to the masters’ hostile resolutions and energetic
canvassing, Hobhouse dropped most of his proposals in Septem-
ber, and the subsequent Act was a minor affair, limited to the
cotton industry, for which ineffective legislation had already
been passed. Oastler angrily blamed Marshall for this defeat,
though Hobhouse ascribed the opposition to West-country and
Scottish masters. But another Leeds man now came to the

* Leeds Mercury, 2 April, 1831.

" Tbid., 16, 23 April; Leeds Patriot, 16 April, 1831.

* Leeds Intelligencer, 28 April; Leeds Patriot, 30 April, 1831.

° See Driver, op. cit., 86-89 and Samuel Kydd (pseud. ‘‘Alfred’’), History of the
Factory Movement (1857), I, 123.

go MISCELLANY

Movement’s help. Born in Derbyshire, Michael Thomas Sadler
had moved to Leeds in 1800, becoming a partner in his
brother’s linen-importing business, a leading local philan-
thropist and a Tory campaigner.*® He had long been concerned
over ‘‘the excessive mortality, etc., that the infamous and
unnatural factory system occasioned’’, and had written on
several social problems. While Hobhouse declared that ‘‘noth-
ing could be more idle than to talk of the possibility’ of ten
hours legislation, Sadler told Oastler that “‘he was entirely with
him’’. In addition to becoming the prospective Tory candidate
for Leeds — soon to be given two seats under the Reform Act
— he accepted the Parliamentary leadership of the Move-
ment.’ Henceforth, for fifteen months, the Ten Hours cause
in Leeds was bound up with Sadler’s candidature, which was
supported by Tories, Radicals and “‘Short Time’’ men alike.
The strange alliance behind Sadler aroused the anger of
Baines — the natural champion of the Whigs, T. B. Macaulay,
and John Marshall, junior — against the Tories’ “‘contemptible
trickery’’. But wide Radical support was raised for Sadler,
who, said Henry Hunt in November, was ‘‘ten thousand times
more disposed to assist the working classes’ than was
Macaulay.** A new Radical Political Union, under John Ayrey,
supported both factory and Parliamentary reform; and even
Huddersfield Radicals sent loyal messages to Sadler. When
such Tory-Radical collaboration was attacked, Cavie Richard-
son of the Leeds committee answered in an address to local
workers: *°
It is most honourable to all parties. In what are they agreed? To
resist the oppressor and to deliver the oppressed. It is only on
this ground that they meet. Sadler is a Tory, Oastler is a Tory,
Perring is a Tory, and Foster is a Radical Reformer. But, noble-

minded men, they lay aside their differences for a while to main-
tain the cause of the poor.

With Sadler confirmed as their new leader at Westminster,
the committees started a second campaign in December, 1831.
The first meeting was another rally of Leeds mill delegates

On Sadler (1780-1835), see R. B. Seeley, Memoirs of Life and Writings of
Michael Thomas Sadler (1842) and my articles, “‘Sadler of Leeds: Christian Re-
former’’, York Quarterly, February, 1958, and ‘‘M. T. Sadler’’, University of Leeds
Review, December, 1960.

11 Hobhouse to Oastler, 16 November; Sadler to Oastler, 1, 20 September, 1831.

12 Teeds Intelligencer, 10 November, 1831.

18C. Richardson, Address to the Working Classes of Leeds and the West-Riding,
to December, 6.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT or

in the Union Inn on 10 December, when Oastler debated the
Ten Hours proposal with Baines before an excited audience
and scored an oratorical triumph. John Hannam, the new
chairman of the Leeds reformers, presided; and the secretary,
an excitable ultra-Radical named Ralph Taylor, made a
supporting speech.** John Hernaman and Perring, the Tory
publishers, printed detailed reports of the debate for a wide
circulation.

But active participation in the campaign in Leeds was not
confined to Radical operatives. One of the earliest of the many
medical practitioners who were to support the Movement was
Charles Turner Thackrah, an energetic young surgeon whose
personal life had provided material for considerable scandal.
Thackrah’s once-famous pioneer work on The Effects of the
Principal Arts, Trades and Professions . . . on Health and
Longevity was published in 1831 and expressed strong views
on child labour: “‘the employment of young children in any
labour was wrong’’.*’ At the first great open rally, on 9 Janu-
ary, 1832, when some 12,000 people assembled in the Mixed
Cloth Hall yard, the strength of support became more obvious.
The chairman was another surgeon, the Tory Mayor, William
Hey.*® Richard Fawcett, the Vicar, proposed a resolution
against the overworking of children and was seconded by
Richard Winter Hamilton, minister of Belgrave Independent
chapel and one of the few dissenting ministers to support the
campaign.*’ Thackrah spoke for the Ten Hours Bill, declaring
that,

In a word, the system tends to produce a weak, stunted and
short-lived race . . . I think ten hours is enough, and too much.

Samuel Smith, another Tory surgeon and an old schoolfriend
of Oastler, spoke of crippled children treated at the Infirmary.**
Other speakers included Oastler, Sadler, Taylor, Foster,

4 Leeds Intelligencer, 15 December, Leeds Mercury, 17 December, 1831; Exposi-
tion of the Factory System, Myr Oastler and the Leeds Mercury (1831), 2-3;
Outline of the Proceedings at a Meeting of the Operatives of Leeds (1831).

** The 1831 edition had ‘‘particular reference to the Trades and Manufactures
of Leeds’’; the second edition (1832) is reprinted in A. Meiklejohn, The Life,
Work and Times of C. T. Thackvah (1957). On Thackrah (1795-1833) see also
Taylor, op. cit., 344-48.

** On Hey (1771-1844) see Taylor, op. cit., 403.

’ On Fawcett (1760-1837) and Hamilton (1794-1848) see Taylor, op. cit., 368-70,
431-35.

* On Smith (1790-1867), see C. S. Spence, Memoirs of Eminent Men of Leeds
[1868], 77-79.

Q2 MISCELLANY

Smithson and William Hirst, ‘‘the father of the Yorkshire
woollen trade’’.*® Despite opposition from young Marshall and
several other masters — and from some operatives, who feared
wage reductions — resolutions were passed by large majorities
in favour of Sadler’s Bill. The crowd later cheered outside
Sadler’s house and the Intelligencer and Patnot offices and
groaned outside the premises of the Mercury. The report of the
proceedings filled a pamphlet of 36 pages.” This great meeting
resulted in a petition bearing 18,000 names; and it set a pattern
for rallies throughout the Riding.

The factory reformers used every possible method of
publicising their cause and tried to answer every attack on it.
When, in February, the Mercury claimed that the Ten Hours
Bill would reduce production and wages in proportion to the
reduction of hours, Ralph Taylor replied in an open letter
claiming that regulation would necessitate the use of more
machinery and provide more employment, thus reducing
competition for work and raising wages.** In the following
month, Taylor solicited the views of Macaulay (an old literary
opponent of Sadler, whose studies on population he had
condemned in the Edinburgh Review, and a strong critic of
““ntermeddling’’ with industry). Macaulay somewhat trimmed
his views: he would support the protection of children from
overwork, he declared, but would not interfere with the sacred
‘free agency’’ of adult workers.** Other controversies were
set in verse. John Nicholson, “‘the Airedale Poet’’, gave his
support; but the drunken and impoverished woolcomber was
later hired by Baines to rhyme the opposition case, in a poem
on The Factory Child’s Mother. A Leeds operative, one James
Ross, retaliated with a long saga entitled The Factory Child's
Father's Reply to the Factory Child’s Mother. Other Leeds
poetic contributions during 1832 included William Walker’s
Poetical Strictures on the Factory System and sentimental
anonymous papers on The Song of the Factory Children,
Hymns for Factory Children and The Factory Child’s Hymn.
Sadler himself, for long an amateur poet, produced several
tear-jerking verses on The Factory Child’s Last Day.

While the Short Time Committee itself remained primarily

17 On Hirst (1777-1858), see Taylor, of. cit., 472-74.

20 The Ten Hours Bill. Report of the Proceedings of the Great Leeds Meeting
... held on Monday, January 9, 1832 (1832).

21,R. Taylor, To the Editors of the Leeds Mercury (1832).

22 Macaulay to Taylor, 16 March, 1832 (S. Kydd, op. cit., I, 148-50).

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT 93

a working-class group centred on the Union Inn, Leeds re-
formers were anxious to organise middle-class support. Accord-
ingly, a brochure was issued soliciting support for ‘‘the Leeds
General Committee for Promoting the Bill now before Parlia-
ment, for Restricting the Hours of Juvenile Labour in the
Factories of the United Kingdom’’. This novel society was
presided over by the Vicar. The committee consisted of several
well-known Leeds men — John Atkinson, junior, R. C.
Battye, Samuel Clapham, the Rev. James Fawcett, John
Foster, Robert Hall, William Hirst, Thomas Inchbold, Robert
Perring, Samuel Smith and the Methodist Rev. Daniel Isaac.
The joint secretaries were Ralph Taylor and William Osburn
junior, Oastler’s old friend, an Evangelical Tory wine merch-
ant, Sunday School superintendent, Poor Law overseer and
Egyptologist.** In addition, a Yorkshire Central Committee
was established at Leeds to lead the County agitation. Osburn
was the first chairman of this body, with Taylor as secretary.

On 16 March, 1832, Sadler proposed his Ten Hours Bill, in
a famous three hours’ speech to the Commons, appealing for
reform on social, moral, humanitarian, medical and economic
grounds. As usual, Hernaman and Perring printed reports as
broadsides for local readers. But the Government refused to
act without further enquiry, and a Parliamentary Committee
was set up under Sadler’s chairmanship, to hear evidence.
Osburn immediately issued appeals for cash and evidence, and
each local committee selected witnesses to go to London. The
Leeds men apparently worked hard, for of the 87 people to
appear before the Committee on 43 days between 12 April and
7 August, 23 came from Leeds. A succession of men and women
—— William Cooper, James Kirk, David Bywater, Eldin Har-
grave, Joshua Drake, David Brook, David Swithenbank,
Alonzo Hargraves, Benjamin Bradshaw, Eliza Marshall,
Charles Burns, Mark Best, Stephen Binns, James Carpenter,
Elizabeth Bentley, Samuel and Jonathan Downe, John Daw-
son, William Hebden and John Hannam — gave evidence
on bad working conditions in Leeds: ten of them were cripples
and seven of them had been employed in the Marshalls’ flax
mills, Osburn, Smith and Thackrah gave further Leeds evi-
dence. But on 9 July Osburn reported that several witnesses,
including Swithenbank, Cooper and Hargraves, had been dis-

7° On Osburn (1793-1875), see Leeds Mercury, 27 February, 1875.

94 MISCELLANY

missed on their return home; so the interrogation of operatives
was ended, to prevent further victimisation.”*

While the Committee was sitting, Osburn’s Yorkshire Com-
mittee planned a mass rally at York for Easter Tuesday. The
arrangements were made at a conference in Leeds on 21 April.
Instructions were given to all the local committees about the
march to York, and some £1,500 was spent on food and
accommodation along the York Road. The famous demonstra-
tion, which was planned, started and ended (with the burning
of Baines’ effigy) in Leeds, was a triumphant success, supported
by ‘“‘Divisions’’ from towns throughout the manufacturing areas
of the Riding.*® But in Leeds the dominant interest was in the
coming election. A series of enthusiastic meetings hailed the
passing of the Reform Act, though Tories and ultra-Radicals
made their protests. ‘‘I should like to know what the operatives
are to reap from the Reform Bill’’, declared Taylor, in June,
“Tf they and their children are to work the exact number of
hours which they are able to bear’’; and he made sure that
the Ten Hours cause and the Trade Unions were represented
at all political meetings.*® The Short Time Committee played
a considerable part in the exciting events of the last few months
before the election. Baines published an allegation that the
committee’s funds had been misused; and he rejected the
operatives’ reply, which both the Intelligencer and the Patriot
printed. Taylor and Hannam, both of whom were unpaid,
pointed out that misappropriation was impossible, as all funds
were sent to the Central Committee. Taylor claimed that Baines
was angry,

simply because we cannot agree with him that men who think
our children should be enslaved for their benefit, are the most
proper persons to represent us in Parliament,
and because workers could not aid Marshall and Macaulay,
who supported
that glorious measure of Reform, whose greatest beauty is that

it totally proscribes the Working Classes from the exercise of their
Political Rights.

74 Parliamentary Papers, 1831-32, XV, ‘‘Report from the Committee on the Bill
to regulate the Labour of Children in the Mills and Factories of the United King-
dom’’, passim.

25 Osburn notice, 17 April; County Meeting, Order of Procession and other
papers in Oastler’s ‘‘White Slavery’’ collection in London University Library;
Leeds Intelligencer, Leeds Mercury, Leeds Patriot, passim; see J. C. Gill, ‘“‘The
Pilgrimage of Mercy’’, York Quarterly, May, 1958.

26 Teeds Intelligencer, 21 June, etc., reprinted as a leaflet with accounts by
Oastler and Taylor.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT 95

The Radical Taylor consequently supported Sadler, the Tory
social reformer.*’

The story of the tempestuous struggle for the representation
of Leeds has already been told.** Constantly, from a riotous
Whig meeting on 4 September, Oastler and the factory re-
formers kept their cause in the forefront. Sadler was supported,
according to the Mercury,”® by ‘.

a procession of operatives, of that nondescript and mongrel class
betwixt Ultra-Radicals and Ultra-Tories, whom the Ten Hours
Bill had induced to abandon their former radical character and
to swell the ranks of the anti-reformers and the Leeds Corpora-
tion.
Proletarian Radicals like John Ayrey and William Rider, the
president and secretary of the Political Union, regularly inter-
rupted the two Whigs, who continued to oppose Sadler’s Bill.
A large banner prominently displayed at Tory meetings*°
represented a view of Messrs. Marshalls’ mill in Water Lane in a
snow-storm on a winter’s morning, with several poor decrepit and
half-naked factory children trudging in a shivering attitude through
the snow; on the picture were painted the words, ‘“‘A Scene in
Water Lane at five o’clock in the morning’’.

George Stringer Bull, a fiery little Anglican priest, curate of
Bierley and a leader of the Bradford factory reformers, entered
the fray, urging Leeds operatives to**

cling to their Ten Hours Bill as tenaciously as Mr Sadler clung to

the Poor Man’s Cause, or Mr Macaulay to his Liberal Paymasters.
John Doherty, the Radical and Trade Union leader at Man-
chester, warned the factory reformers that their cause would
be lost if Sadler were defeated.°*

The election was bitterly fought, with Tories and Radicals
stressing the Whigs’ hostility to industrial reform, the bad
conditions in the Marshalls’ mills and the large public pensions
of the Macaulay family, while the Whigs pointed to Sadler’s
long opposition to the Reform Act under which Leeds had ob-
tained its two seats. Considerable outside interest was aroused,
and factory reformers throughout the North sent addresses in

*” Leeds Mercury, 21 July, 1832; R. Taylor, J. Hannam, To the Public, 31 July.

7° The most complete account is A. S. Turberville and F. Beckwith, ‘‘Leeds
and Parliamentary Reform, 1820-1832, Thovesby Soc. Publications, XLI (1946),
1-88.

*° Leeds Mercury, 8 September, 1832.

°° Leeds Intelligencer, 13 December, 1832.

°° G. S. Bull, Reply to the Leeds Mercury’s Remarks (8 December, 1832); see
J. C. Gill: The Ten Hours Parson (1959), 67-76.

5? The Poor Man’s Advocate and People’s Library, 1 September, 1832.

96 MISCELLANY

support of Sadler. In October 2,000 Bolton men urged the
Leeds electors:

Do not suffer the detestable distinctions of Party and Faction
to seduce you from the path of Mercy and Charity.

And in December a Manchester petition in Sadler’s support
bore 40,000 signatures. Even in Glasgow the operative spinners
carried a full-length portrait of Sadler through the streets and
sent their supporting messages.°* Meanwhile, the Leeds com-
mittee sent Cavie Richardson as a ‘‘missionary’’ to raise
support for the Factory Bill in Derbyshire and Nottingham-
shire. **

All three candidates were severely heckled on nomination
day, 10 December. Both Tories and Radicals continued to
support Sadler; the Mercury was shocked that the Tory
speakers, Robert Hall and William Beckett, ‘‘allowed them-
selves to be elbowed by such fellows as Ralph Taylor and John
Ayrey’’.°? But the Whigs won the show of hands, after fight-
ing around a factory reform banner, which led to eleven men
being taken to the Infirmary. Two days later Marshall and
Macaulay easily won, with 2,o1r and 1,983 votes to Sadler’s
1,587. “The voters of Leeds’’, asserted the disappointed
Oastier,*°

had listened to the voice of the tempter — they had rejected
the man whose eloquence was wont to be raised in Britain’s senate
in defence of the poor.

If

The defeat of Sadler marked the end of Leeds’ period of
dominance in the Yorkshire Ten Hours Movement. It was a
serious blow for the whole agitation, leaving it leaderless at
a time when the new Liberal Parliament was about to assemble.
The Leeds reformers were bitterly disappointed; but Hannam
and Taylor published a poster declaring that although their
““ndefatigable champion was excluded from Parliament’’, the
cause was gaining support following the publication of Sadler’s
great Report. They warned operatives against any compromise

°° Glasgow Courier, 28 September, Glasgow Chronicle, 29 September, 1832. —

°4 See C. Richardson, Factory Slavery (1832) and A Short Description of the
Factory System (1832).

°° Leeds Mercury Extraordinary, 11 December, 1832.

°° 'R. Oastler, Facts and Plain Words on Everyday Subjects (1833), 3.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT Q7

with supporters of an eleven hours’ day.*’ But, as Robert
Southey told Lord Ashley,*®
Sadler is a loss; he might not be popular in the House or in
London society, but his speeches did much good in the country,
and he is a singularly able, right-minded and religious man. Who
is there that will take up the question of our white slave trade
with equal feeling?

After the election reverse the Leeds reformers lost their
prestige in the Movement, and the various Radical groups —
there had been two Political Unions since 1831 — indulged in
one of their periodic quarrels. John Foster had been bank-
rupted after a court case in 1832 and was already feeling bitter
against the refusal of Oastler and Sadler to aid him from the
Movement’s funds — although they raised a voluntary fund
in his support. Leeds reformers were violently divided and,
probably because of this, the town was displaced as the York-
shire headquarters by Bradford. On 11 January, 1833,
twenty-four committees were represented either by delegates
or by written statements at the Movement’s first conference,
in Bradford; they ranged from Dundee to Nottingham, but
Leeds, significantly, was not represented. Although Oastler,
Sadler, Osburn and Richardson attended, the decisions were
taken by the operatives, who resolved to form a still wider
movement and to send Bull to London to select a new Parlia-
mentary leader.*? Leeds played little part in the subsequent
campaign, although mill delegates assembled in the Angel
Inn to oppose Baines’ constant threat of an eleven hours’
compromise.*

After several interviews, Bull persuaded Lord Ashley, the
31-year-old Tory Member for Dorset, to take Sadler’s place.
Ashley instantly proposed to reintroduce the Ten Hours Bill
and a new campaign began in his support. But during March
Wilson Patten, the mouthpiece of the hostile manufacturers,
proposed that a further enquiry should be held, as Sadler’s
Committee had heard only the operatives’ case. Every
Northern committee opposed this proposal with a flood of pro-

*7 J. Hannam, R. Taylor, To the Operatives of Leeds and the West Riding of
Yorkshire (1833).

** Southey to Ashley, 13 January, 1833 (Sir E. Hodder, Life and Work of the
7th Earl of Shaftesbury (1886), I, 46).

°° Minutes and Resolutions (15 January); Leeds Mercury, Leeds Patriot, 19
January, Leeds Intelligencer, 21 January, 1833.

“° Leeds Intelligencer, 21 January; British Labourer’s Protector, 1 February,
1833.

98 MISCELLANY

tests. The Leeds operatives reprinted the hostile comments of
the Morning Herald on the proposal and pointed out that the
workers had paid for Sadler’s Committee and were now ex-
pected to contribute also, through taxation, to a Royal
Commission intended to ‘‘whitewash’’ the masters: **
Now, Fellow Countrymen, 1s this fair? The Poor — the oppressed
— have to pay for their redress, and when done, could not get
it. The Rich — the Oppressors — are contriving schemes of delay —
there is to be a Commission or so many nice sleek Gentlemen with
good salaries from Government, to delay justice, to continue
infanticide, AND THE POOR ARE TO PAY FOR THAT TOO!
Oh! Justice, where art thou Fled?
The Leeds committee also organised one of the many protest
meetings.*” But in April a sparsely-attended Commons carried
Patten’s motion, and a Royal Commission was established to
report on industrial labour.

Leeds factory reformers again became active in the campaign
against the Commission, which both sides expected to favour
the masters. Sadler addressed a meeting on g April, and ten
days later Cavie Richardson told local delegates to watch and
report on every move of the Commissioners. Richardson’s
meeting was held indoors, to avoid the victimisation of those
taking part; but the principal speaker was no moderate,
“Burke, with his small retail shop in Edinburgh’’, Richard-
son declared, *°

was only a petty dealer and chapman in comparison with those
who carry on child murder on an extensive scale and in large
establishments.
On 22 April the reformers met in conference at Manchester
and decided that the Commissioners should be opposed in each
town.

Generally, the reformers were well prepared for the arrival
of the Commissioners, who were greeted with abuse through-
out the North. On 27 April one Joseph Brierley of Leicester
announced the ‘‘Approach of the Enemy’’ in a letter promptly
reprinted by the Leeds committee. Two Commissioners, John
Elliot Drinkwater and Alfred Power, arrived in Leeds on 13
May and soon tried to obtain the help of local reformers.
Sadler replied with a strong condemnation of their “‘secret

“Tyvanny’s Last Shift! (1833).

“2 British Labourer’s Protector, 15 March, 1833.

43.C. Richardson, Speech ... before the Short Time Committee ... etc. (1833),
A. (650 7:

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT 99

tribunal’, and called for open examination of witnesses, in
order to prevent the unfair selection of evidence.** The Com-
missioners rejected Sadler’s suggestions and attacked his
“highly excited imagination’’,*® whereupon Sadler’s Radical
aide, William Rider, retorted that ‘“‘they were earning their
daily bread by a work so dirty that an honest operative,
however humble, would scorn to undertake’’.*® This bitter
correspondence continued into June: Sadler considered it
“‘really monstrous’’ that evidence should be heard privately
and selected at will,*’ while Drinkwater and Power angrily
complained of ““coarse’’ personal attacks and hostile posters
“in almost every street’’.** The Leeds committee, under its
new chairman and secretary, John Stubbs and William Rider,
strongly supported Sadler.*°

Although some erstwhile reformers, probably under the
influence of Baines’ compromise plans, aided the Com-
missioners, most remained firm. On 16 May Richardson and
Foster led 3,000 children to present memorials against the
“Snjustice, inhumanity and fraud’’ of the Commission; and
Oastler hastened to join a bitter argument at the Com-
missioners’ hotel. When the committee’s agents reported that
the Commissioner had dined with the Marshalls at Headingley
— and even listed the menu — another protest rally was held,
on 20 May; and four days later Oastler issued a notorious
condemnation of ‘‘the secret inquisition to perpetuate child
murder “, based on 21 points; “‘in°the Name of the Father,
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’’.’® Drinkwater pro-
tested at such ““blasphemous violence, but moved to Bradford
early in June, to meet a similar reception.

There were soon signs that the Whig Government planned
to defeat the factory reformers by providing an eight hours’
day for the youngest children and leaving the other workers
unprotected. Delegates from the Leeds, Bradford and Hudders-
field committees hastily assembled at Bradford on 19 June and

44M. T. Sadler, Protest against the Secret Proceedings ... etc. (1833), 4-6.

4° J. E. Drinkwater, A. Power, Replies to Mr M. T. Sadler’s Protest (1833), 3.
4°'W. Rider, Observations on ... the Replies... etc. (1833), 2.

“7M. T. Sadler, Reply to the Two Letters... etc. (1833), 6.

48 J. E. Drinkwater, Letter to M. T. Sadler, A. Power, Letter to M. T. Sadler

(1833), passim.

“° J. Stubbs, W. Rider, Don Quixote and his Esquires (1833).

°° Great Meeting in Leeds ... of the factory children (1833); W. Rider, More
Lies of the Mercury and To the Commissioners, posters, 27, 16 May; R. Oastler’s
Protest, 24 May; Leeds Intelligencer, 18, 25 May, The Times, 22 May; Leeds
posters and handbills.

I0O MISCELLANY

planned another County meeting, to be held on Wibsey Moor
on I July, to expose this ‘‘insidious scheme’’.°’* Stubbs and
Rider warned Leeds workers that the eight hours plan, as
advanced by the Mercury, involved the use of children in two
relays, thus causing a 16 hours’ day for adults.°* The com-
mittee room in the Union Inn was again the scene of great
activity, as the threat of a relay system gave a further impetus
to campaigning. On 24 June Rider was the secretary of a
Yorkshire conference at Robert Town, which urged operatives
to stand firm by Ashley’s Bill and to support the coming West
Riding rally.°°
The great meeting was organised from the new West. Riding

headquarters at Bradford by the County secretary, John Hall,
although Leeds remained the senior of the six divisions into
which the reformers were organised. The Leeds Division actu-
ally included the Leeds, Pudsey, Stanningley, Farsley and
Calverley committees.°* But before the rally occurred, the
Commissioners had reported, recommending that children
under the age of g should be prohibited from working and
that those aged between 9 and 13 should be restricted (by
stages) to eight hours’ labour; the reformers’ claims were re-
jected.°? The new Radical Leeds Times — which was estab-
lished in March, a month after the demise of Foster’s Patriot —
thought that the Report was’®

one of the most stupid, blundering, contradictory, malignant and

dangerous compositions ever presented to the abhorrence of the

British Empire.
But Oastler considered that ‘‘the object was to outbid us in
humanity’’ and believed that it would fail, for the operatives
were ‘‘absolutely enraged’’: °’

In Bradford they are red hot and even in Leeds united and firm —

nay, even enthusiastic. We have gained much in Leeds by the
recent defalcations — we now know our men.

The July rally took place in a mood of bitter resentment:
100,000 supporters attended to hear Oastler, Ayrey, Richard-

51G. S. Bull, A Last Lift for the Ten Hours Bill, 20 July, 1833.

52 7. Stubbs, W. Rider, The Ten Hours Bill, Leeds poster, 18 June, 1833.

°° Charles Etherington, W. Rider, Addvess ... to the Friends of Justice, Human-
ity and Industry, Bradford poster, 24 June, 1833.

54 J. Hall, poster, 25 June, 1833.

55 Pavliamentary Papers, 1833, XX, passim.

°° Leeds Times, 4 July, 1833.

57 Oastler to Foster, 23 June (in London University Library).

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT IOI

son and others speak for 54 hours in favour of Ashley’s Bill.°*

But Parliament took no notice of Northern appeals or threats.
A Bill largely based on the Commissioners’ suggestions but
also providing for a 12 hours’ day for ‘“young persons’’ aged
between 13 and 18, was proposed by Lord Althorp in July
and was rapidly passed. It was the first Factory Act affecting
the woollen industries and providing for factory inspection.

Ill

The Short Time Committees rapidly disintegrated after the
failure of their campaign, and their bitterness was increased
by personal divisions. Foster never forgave Oastler for refus-
ing to subsidise him from the reformers’ funds, and in the
autumn of 1833 published wild accusations in the Whig Press
that Oastler and Sadler had misappropriated the money.
Sections of the London ultra-Radical Press seized on these
charges to attack the Tory leaders of the agitation.°’ Oastler
himself was gloomy about “‘the spirit of concession which Satan
had put into the hearts of (the operatives’) leaders’’; while
some committees had remained firm, ‘‘Leeds was divided, he
believed, as indeed it always was .. .’’®? One Leeds sympath-
iser, signing himself ‘‘An Old Friend’’, put out a gloomy poster
entitled ““The Ten Hours Bill Is Lost’’, wildly advocating
the abolition of the entire factory system and the revival of
domestic manufacture. At this dark time few Leeds reformers
remained as staunch in their support of Ashley’s Bill as William
Rider.°* Nevertheless, on 1 August, delegates of the West
Riding committees met in Leeds and resolved to maintain an
organisation and to ask members to refuse to work more than
ten hours per day.®** Such implications of strike action were
meaningless at a time when Yorkshire trade unionists had
already been defeated in several disputes. Reformers were in
fact left with little to do but voice suspicions of the Act: the
Intelligencer, for instance, suspected that the ‘‘chief recom-
mendation’’ of the Inspectorships was ‘‘the patronage they
afforded’’.*° 7

°° Leeds Times, 4 July, Leeds Intelligencer, 6 July, Voice of the West Riding,
6, 13 July, The Times, 5 July; and the pamphlets Great Meeting of the West
Riding (1833), The Great West Riding Meeting (1833).

°° These charges were printed in the Morning Chronicle and supported by Henry
Hetherington’s Poor Man’s Guardian.

°° Oastler to Abraham Wildman, 25 July, 1833 (Keighley News, 9 April, 1870).

** Voice of the West Riding, 17 August, 1833.

°? Leeds Intelligencer, 3 August, 1833.

* Ibid., 10 August, 1833.

I02 MISCELLANY

Some reform organisation was maintained through a net-
work of ‘‘Factory Reformation Societies’, planned at a
Birstall conference on 28 October.°* A branch was formed at
Leeds, to unite operative and middle-class supporters. Foster’s
stupid slanders were disproved by the organisation, and Henry
Hetherington, the London Radical publisher, acknowledged
his error.°’ But in November a new, impractical ‘‘Eight Hours
Movement’’ began at Manchester under the promptings of
Robert Owen, the socialist manufacturer, and the leaders of
the Lancashire committees. This utopian ‘‘Society for Promot-
ing National Regeneration’’ called for the support of all the
old ‘“Ten Hours’’ men. Oastler and his closest associates re-
fused to desert their organisation, but the new movement
rapidly swept through Lancashire, and early in 1834 the
““Regenerationists’’ swallowed the Yorkshire committees and
Reformation societies. Nor was this the only reverse. In Janu-
ary Sadler was soundly beaten at a Huddersfield by-election.
And in February, Sir John Beckett, the Leeds Tory leader and
a sympathiser with factory reform, who was aided by Rider,
Hall and the local Reformation Society, lost narrowly to Baines
in the by-election following Macaulay’s resignation.®® Rider
remained a virulent controversialist: Baines, he asserted, was
“‘the willing tool of (the operatives’) oppressors, and their most
inveterate but crafty foe’’.°* Supporting Beckett at the second
Leeds election was the last action of the local Reformation
Society. The vague nonsense announced by the new Owenite
organisation exerted an immense appeal; the Owenites talked
of ‘‘a revolution co-extensive with society itself, which would
affect, more or less, every individual in these Kingdoms’’, and
of ‘“‘8 hours’ labour for 12 hours’ wages’’**® The Leeds
Reformation Society became a Regeneration branch, and Leeds
operatives soon urged the Short Time Committee to follow its
example. But the whole organisation collapsed, along with the
rest of Owen’s ill-planned schemes, later in the summer.

The factory reformers now turned to a variety of causes.
Oastler, Bull and Rider all wrote and spoke in support of the
‘‘Tolpuddle Martyrs’’ and the right to form Trade Unions.

** Address to the Friends of Humanity and Justice, Birstall, 28 October, 1833.

®° The Crisis, 14 December, etc.

°° On Sir John Beckett, 2nd bart. (1775-1847), see R. V. Taylor, op. cit., 422-24

8" Leeds Intelligencer, passim; W. Rider, To the Operatives of the Borough of

Leeds (x February, 1834).
*§ Herald of the Rights of Industry, 8 February, 1834.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT I03

Rider particularly condemned the use of ‘‘an old rusty Act
of Parliament, which would transport two of the Royal Dukes
and half of the Aristocracy of the Land, if it was impartially
put in force’’.°* And he continued to indulge in his favourite
pastime of baiting Baines and the Whig Government respon-
sible for the Tolpuddle sentence.’* Oastler himself attacked the
Leeds masters who were breaking local Unionism by lock-
outs, victimisation and the refusal of Poor Law relief; he
warned them that while they could defeat the operatives they
would create a determination to gain revenge.’*

During 1834 the reformers started to oppose the harshness
of the Poor Law Amendment Act, with its workhouse system
and “‘less eligibility’’ test. In June, Rider started a scurrilous
little sheet, The Demagogue, devoted to attacks on Baines;
and in the second issue he strongly condemned the new Act.”
Another Leeds man, Jonathan Lupton, called for the restora-
tion of the Elizabethan Poor Law for the aged and the children
and for an insurance system for the able-bodied.’* The cause
grew in violence. By December the Leeds Times was attacking
“the English Coercion Bill’? as an ‘‘abominable enormity’’
and a ‘‘monstrous abortion of Whig legislation’’.’* Again,
humanitarian Tories and proletarian Radicals were allied
against the liberals. And for West Riding factory reformers,
the liberalism which opposed them over both factory and
pauper legislation was personified by Baines. In December,
after a series of bitter arguments over Baines’ refusal to publish
replies to his charges, there appeared a pamphlet entitled A
Well-Seasoned Christmas Pte for “‘The Great Liar of the
North’, prepared, cooked, baked and presented by Richard
Oasiler. |

The Leeds agitators could take some pleasure from the
victory of Sir John Beckett at the General Election of January,
1835. But although there was a minor revival of Ten Hours
activity during March it was soon countered by Baines and
the masters, who now opposed the full implementation of the
1833 Act. The Mercury still claimed that a ten hours’ day

°° 'W. Rider, The Sighing of the Prisoner, 17 May, 1834.

" A Word from William Rider to Edward Baines [(n.d.], ten verses.

™ R. Oastler, A Few Words to the Friends and Enemies of Trades Unions and
A Serious Address to the Millowners (1834), passim.

™ The Demagogue, 5 July, 1834.

7? J. Lupton, Observations on the Poor Laws (1834).

™ Leeds Times, 20 December, 1834.

I04 MISCELLANY

would reduce wages and production by one-sixth,’’ although
a reduction to eleven hours was safe and practicable. Brad-
ford reformers hotly answered this ‘‘insolent stupidity’’, but
the Leeds men appear to have been disorganised, although
they had now been joined by Joshua Hobson, an original
founder of the Huddersfield committee who had become a
Radical publisher and printer in Leeds and printed several
papers by Oastler during the summer.’® The greatest Leeds
figure, Michael Sadler, had moved to Belfast because of ill-
health and over-exertion; and he died there in July. However,
new groups of potential supporters were appearing. The
Operative Conservative Society was founded in February,
largely by members of the Intelligencer staff. It adopted
Oastler’s motto of ‘‘Altar, Throne and Cottage’’, and Oastler,
Bull, Perring and Hall were the speakers at its first dinner in
November.’’ Later in the year Hobson and Robert Nicoll, the
editor of the Leeds Times, helped to revive the Radical
Association.’* But reformers generally concentrated on report-
ing breaches of the 1833 Act, and little agitation for further
legislation took place. When Sir George Head visited Leeds
in 1835 he noted that “‘the sun himself was obscured by smoke,
as by a natural mist’’; but he thought that the reformers had
grossly over-painted the operatives’ situation.”

Arguments revived in 1836. In January Baines organised
a large meeting of Leeds masters and operatives to support a
compromise measure, while Oastler urged the workers to stand
by their old policy.*® There was also an extensive campaign
by hostile masters to prevent the final stages of the 1833 Act,
limiting 12-year-old children, from coming into effect. Baines’
second son and partner, Edward, had already asserted that
“‘there could be no doubt that (an) amendment would take
place next Session’’.** In March this demand was taken up by
Poulett Thomson, President of the Board of Trade. Instantly,

™> Teeds Mercury, 7 March, 1835.

7@ On Hobson (1811-1876), see Huddersfield Weekly News, 13 May, 20 May,
1876; Huddersfield Examiner, Huddersfield Chronicle, 13 May, 1876; Death of Mr
Joshua Hobson (1876); D. F. E. Sykes, History of Huddersfield (1898), 301.

77 W. Paul, History of the Origin and Progress of the Operative Conservative
Societies (1842), 8-9; Leeds Intelligencer, Leeds Times, 28 November, 1835.

™§ Leeds Times, 2 January, 1836; on Nicoll (1814-1837), see W. Norrie, Dundee
Celebrities (1873), 52-56.

™ Sir G. Head, A Home Tour through the Manufacturing Districts of England
(1836), passim.

8° Baines, Life, 221; Weekly Police Gazette, 20 February, 1836.

81. Baines, jr., History of the Cotton Industry (1835), 479; on Baines (1800-90),
see D.N.B. Supplement I, Ioo.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT I05

Yorkshire reformers restarted their agitation to oppose any
alteration to the Act, except a Ten Hours measure. Edward
Scruton, the new chairman of the local Ten Hours Committee,
organised the Leeds meeting in the Court House on 4 April,
with Oastler, Bull, Ayrey and Charles Hindley, the Radical
M.P. for Ashton, as speakers.** The Intelligencer maintained
its support.

During this enthusiastic campaign, Baines unwisely alleged
that the operative reformers had broken with Oastler.** Both
Oastler and the Central Committee issued denials, which Baines
refused to print. Consequently, Oastler published another
attack on the Baineses, father and son: **

Somehow, I do hate these ‘“‘Liberal’’ Hypocrites. The good

masters all want to have poor Sadler’s Ten Hours Bill, and so
do I. .

When Baines fantastically claimed that the reformers’ reply
had proved his allegations, Oastler replied that ‘‘this was the
perfection of lying’’.*° More moderately the publication of
Sadler’s Factory Statistics in London in March gave the re-
formers posthumous aid from their old leader.

When Parliament debated the subject in May, Thomson’s
motion was carried only by 178 votes to 176. The majority
was so small that the proposed amendment was dropped.
Baines had supported Thomson; but so, disappointingly for
reformers, had Beckett — and Oastler soon took up the
question with William Paul, the secretary of the Operative
Conservatives.°° Nevertheless, the immediate danger had been
defeated, and the revived campaign was maintained. On 24
May Oastler was again the principal speaker at a Leeds meet-
ing, supported by William Hill, a Barnsley weaver who became
a schoolmaster, phrenologist, Swedenborgian minister and
journalist, and a Radical operative, Mark Crabtree. Oastler
was again talking of strike action in favour of the Ten Hours
Bill.”

While Oastler repeated his violent speeches throughout the
textile counties, the main work of the committees was still to

*? Leeds Intelligencer, Leeds Times, 9 April, Weekly Police Gazette, 16 April,
P Leeds Mercury, 26 March, 1836.

*4'R. Oastler, More Work for the Leeds New Thief-Catchers (1836), 8.

*° R. Oastler, A Letter to a Runaway M.P. (1836), 7.

Ԥ Leeds Times, 14, 21, 28 May, 1836.
*? Ibid., 28 May, 1836.

106 MISCELLANY

report evasions of previous legislation. There were many com-
plaints about the bias of mill-owning magistrates. At Leeds,
for instance, while the Bench sentenced Hobson to six months’
imprisonment for selling Radical journals without the Govern-
ment tax-stamp, they had merely cautioned a master for
breaking Althorp’s Act. Such actions roused Oastler’s furious
anger against ‘‘a system which defied law and perverted
justice’’. He complained at length to his friend, George Good-
man, the Liberal Mayor of Leeds, demanding ‘“‘the full en-
forcement of the Factories Law — against Rich and against
Poor’’.** But the committees could do little but complain.

IV

During 1837 the Factory Movement increasingly concerned
itself with opposition to the Poor Law, now being applied in
the Northern Unions. Although many Leeds reformers were
hostile to the measure, the most violent centres of resistance
were Huddersfield, Bradford and Todmorden. Gradually, the
factory agitation became submerged in a wider Radical move-
ment, which culminated in Chartism — the local story of which
has already been told.*® These changes involved considerable
changes in the old alliances; for instance, Leeds Radicals re-
fused to support Oastler, as a Tory Churchman, in the
Huddersfield by-election in April. But Oastler himself, while
retaining his Tory-Radical convictions, appeared on many
Chartist platforms;°° and many of his local supporters became
Chartist leaders. Three “‘Short-Time’’ men who were all con-
nected with Radical printing — Nicoll, Rider and Hobson —
were among the founders of the Leeds Working Men’s Associa-
tion in September, and Rider carried his violence into the
debates of the Chartist Convention of 1839.

The only move on the factory question was made by Baines,
who, with Sir William Molesworth, defeated Beckett at the
General Election in the summer. He secured the support of a
“‘liberal’’ group of Leeds operatives for an eleven hours Bill,
and held a public meeting in the Court House, on 9 November.
The old reformers turned up in force, under Hobson and the

*°R. Oastler, The Unjust Judge (1836), passim. The Morning Post, 19 March,
1836, stated that there had been 72 prosecutions in the Leeds area, resulting in
85 convictions with fines totalling £272. 5s. 6d.

8° See J. F. C. Harrison, ‘‘Chartism in Leeds’’, in A. Briggs ed., Chartist Studies
(1959), 65-098.

°° See Driver, op. cit., 393-405, for a discussion of this point.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT I07

violent Ashton minister Joseph Rayner Stephens, and soundly
defeated Baines’ motion after a great deal of semi-revolutionary
oratory.’* But Hobson and Hill were now more concerned with
Feargus O’Connor’s Chartist journal, the Northern Star, one
as printer and the other as editor. Stephens published the first
biography of Oastler in the Star, as a serial during the spring
of 1838.°* But Stephens was arrested for incitement in the
winter and imprisoned in 1839, while Oastler was dismissed
from his employment in 1838 and imprisoned for debt in 1840.
With the removal of the two great Tory-Radical leaders, the
Factory Movement virtually disappeared, swallowed by the
Chartist giant. When Baines held another ‘‘eleven hours’’
meeting in the Leeds Court House in the Easter vacation of
1839, his resolution was carried unanimously.’* And Leeds
was represented only by one workman, John Wilkinson, before
Ashley’s Select Committee on the operation of the Factory
mets, di TSAG.

After the collapse of the organised Movement — soon to
be followed by the succession of Chartist failures — the Ten
Hours cause was kept alive mainly by the journal produced
by Oastler from his cell in the Fleet Prison in London. Oastler’s
plan was loyally supported by the Intelligencer and by the
Northern Star,’ and the first issue of the Fleet Papers appeared
on 2 January, 1841. Another former supporter, the Radical
Leeds Times, had, under Samuel Smiles’ editorship, deserted
its ‘“Ten Hours’’ stand and now supported the Anti-Corn Law
League, whose leaders were generally leading opponents of
factory legislation. Hobson printed a poster on behalf of the
remnants of the Leeds committee, asserting that Smiles had
been bought by ‘‘Free Traders’ Gold’’ and that*®

The Ten Hours Bill contains the principle that LABOUR NEEDS
PROTECTION. The old Poor Law of Elizabeth contains the
prneiple, that’ THE POOR HAVE A. RIGHT, TO BE FIRST
KEPT BY THE LAND. The establishment. of these principles
will form a groundwork for the working men to work upwards

to that comfortable and plenteous condition which is theirs by
right, by reason and by justice.

*t Leeds Mercury, 4, 11 November, 1837; Report of Proceedings . . . (Leeds,
1837); see my article ,“‘Revolutionary Tory: The Life of J. R. Stephens of Ashton-
under-Lyne (1805-1879)’’, in Trans. Lancs. and Cheshire Antiq. Soc., 1959.

°2 Northern Star, 31 March-21 April, 1838.

°° Baines, Life, 254.

°4 Parliamentary Papers, 1840, X.

®° Leeds Intelligencer, Northern Star, 26 December, 1840.

°° To the Working Men of Yorkshire generally and of Leeds in particular [n.d.].

108 MISCELLANY

There were signs of reviving interest in the factory cause
during 1841. The Sheffield medical practitioner and social
reformer Calvert Holland produced a series of bitter attacks
on conditions in the Marshalls’ mills, addressed to the manager,
James Garth Marshall.*’ Oastler’s cell became a busy centre,
regularly visited by such old friends as Hall and Osburn. And
Oastler plotted Tory-Radical alliances for the General Election
in the summer: the West Riding Tories and the Intelligencer
joined the opponents of the Poor Law and the factory system
as enthusiastically as did the Chartists.°* Ashley was invited
to contest a Leeds seat, and although preferring his Dorset
constituency, sent his brother-in-law, Lord Jocelyn, as a Tory
candidate jointly with William Beckett.’? Hopes of a ‘‘Ten
Hours’’ victory were to be disappointed: Beckett headed the
poll, but Jocelyn was beaten by two Liberals, William Aldam
(the second Member) and Joseph Hume.*’° Beckett’s brother,
Edmund Beckett Denison (later Sir Edmund Beckett, 4th
baronet) was elected as a Tory Member for the Riding, to
Oastler’s delight. Sir Robert Peel’s new Conservative Party
had gained a substantial majority, and many factory reformers
looked hopefully to Westminster, although Oastler deeply
suspected Peel and his Home Secretary, Sir James Graham.

Many Short Time Committees were refounded as Ten Hours
Committees or ‘‘Oastler Societies’’ during the late summer
of 1841, largely to raise funds to help their imprisoned leader.
Ashley visited several committees, for the first time, in August,
arriving in Leeds on the 5th, accompanied by Sadler’s brother
Benjamin and by Benjamin Jowett, a member of a Leeds
family who was one of Ashley’s closest assistants.*°* Ashley
addressed a Leeds meeting under Hobson, supported by G. A.
Fleming, Rider, Perring and Crabtree, the Chartist workman
who had succeeded Bull as the Yorkshire Central secretary in
1840.*°* The agitation was hopefully reviving, but the Govern-
ment’s policy was vague and Oastler grew increasingly sus- '
picious of the ministers’ “‘liberalism’’. Beckett and Aldam

7G. C. Holland, The Millocrat, nos. 1-7 (February-April, 1841).

*§ Leeds Intelligencer, 24 April, 8, 22 May, 26 June, 3 July, etc., 1841.

®? Ashley’s diary, 25 May, 22 June, 1841 (Hodder, op. cit., I, 337-39).

°° See my article, ‘‘The Squire as Businessman: William fides of Frickley
Hall”? (Trans. Hunter Arch. Soc., 1961).

1 On Jowett (1788-1859), father of the great Master of Balliol, see E. Abbott
and L. Campbell, Life and Letters of B. Jowett, M.A., Master of Balliol College,
Oxford (1897), I, ch. 1:

12 Teeds Intelligencer, 7 August, 1841.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT 109

attended a meeting of Northern M.P.’s and manufacturers in
the autumn, but the only result was an ‘‘eleven hours’’ sugges-
tion. Soon after, five Yorkshire operatives, with Hobson as
the Leeds representative, travelled to London to meet the
Government. With Beckett’s help, they had discussions with
Peel, Graham, Lord Wharncliffe, Gladstone, the Duke of
Buckingham, Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Stanley. The canvass
was made possible by Beckett; and although the delegates
were Radicals,***

it gratified them exceedingly to find him so superior to class,

party and conventional influence (and) to hear (his) avowal of

principles in reference to the use of property and the rights of
the poor 2s”.

Although the operatives returned with considerable hopes of
Governmental support, early in 1842 it became apparent that
Peel would not aid Ashley’s measure.

The revived Leeds committee was mainly concerned with
raising support for an Oastler Testimonial Fund, which was
commended by the Intelligencer and by Perring’s new Leeds
Conservative Journal. William Atkinson, Perring, Smithson
and a group of workmen held a meeting in Oastler’s support
in the Commercial Hotel in May.*°* Oastler himself maintained
a ceaseless flow of attacks on ‘‘the Whiggery of Conservatism’’
in the pages of the Fleet Papers, while his “‘disciple’’, young
William Busfeild Ferrand, the Right-wing Tory M.P. for
Knaresborough, said much the same in the Commons. During
the hot summer, Midlands disputes set off a chain of violent
strikes throughout the North, which are generally known as
the “‘Plug Plots’’ and responsibility for which is still difficult
to apportion among masters, operatives and Chartists. Although
the rioters achieved comparatively little in Leeds, their activities
overshadowed other proletarian causes for some time.

From 1842 Ferrand emerged as a leading speaker on
industrial reform. In March, 1843, the Leeds Operative Con-
servatives expressed thanks to “‘that truly devoted advocate
of the rights of the Poor and of the operative classes in general’’
praising

8 The Ten Hours Factory Question. A Report addressed to the Short Time
Committees of the West Riding of Yorkshire (1842), 34.

4 Leeds Intelligencer, 5 February, 7 May, Leeds Conservative Journal, 7 May,
1842; on Perring (1788-1869), see F. Beckwith, Introductory Account, op. cit.,

xxxv-xlv, and F. Beckwith and M. A. Gibb, The Yorkshire Post, Two Centuries
(1954), 17-22.

ETO MISCELLANY

his manly, persevering and unflinching conduct in exposing in
the British House of Commons the evils of the Truck System,
the Tyranny heaped on the Poor in the name of a Poor Law
Amendment Act, and his truly disinterested spirit evinced in the
cause of the Suffering Labouring Classes.

They hoped that,*°°

notwithstanding the abuse heaped upon him by a vile, corrupted
Whig radical Press, aided by Millocracy, Steamocracy and Mach-
inocracy, he would still enjoy the blessings of perfect health to
Battle the Enemies of true and rational Liberty.

They also supported Ferrand’s attempt to promote allot-
ment schemes by legislation.*°® Joshua Hobson became a
particularly energetic supporter of the causes promoted by
Ferrand during this period.

During 1843, however, the factory campaign was over-
shadowed by a major religious argument. In March Graham
introduced a Bill limiting children aged between 8 and 13 to
64 hours’ daily labour and providing three hours’ daily educa-
tion. A violent controversy raged over the proposal that the
factory schools should be controlled primarily by Anglicans.*°’
The nonconformist opposition was led by the Congregationalist
Edward Baines junior, who considered that the Bill was the
work of two High Churchmen, Factory Inspector Saunders
and Walter Farquhar Hook, who had been Vicar of Leeds
since 1837.*°* Baines claimed that Leeds had ‘‘more educa-
tion, more religion and less vice’’ than Westminster itself.*°°
And he exposed the “‘horrible and unparalleled slanders’’ on
Northern conditions, by listing the amount of school and re-
ligious accommodation provided by voluntary effort.**® But
while resisting State interference in education largely on
religious grounds, Baines continued to oppose industrial
legislation, which, he claimed, would reduce wages.*'* While
nonconformist ministers and laymen aroused violent opposition
to the Bill, the Factory Movement also condemned it for not

L. K. Royston to Ferrand, 30 March, 1843 (Ferrand MSS. at Oving Manor,
by courtesy of the late Col. G. W. Ferrand, O.B.E.).

*°6 See Allotment of Waste Lands. The Speech of W. B. Ferrand, Esq., M.P.
(1843); The Times, 31 March, 1843.

*°7 See my article, ‘‘A Lost Opportunity in Education: 1843’’, Leeds University,
Institute of Education, Researches and Studies, October, 1959. ;

8 E. Baines, Letter to the Rt. Hon. Lord Wharncliffe (1843).

9 FE. Baines, The Manufacturing Districts Vindicated (1843).

1° E. Baines, The Social, Educational and Religious State of the Manufacturing
Districts (1843).

41K, Baines, The Labour Clauses of Sir James Graham’s Factory Bill (1843).

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT Tid

going far enough; and Baines’ accusations about Dr Hook
were untrue.*** The Government was compelled to withdraw
the measure.

Amid these varied excitements, the Oastler Fund had moved
slowly. But in October the loyal Rider urged all the old com-
mittees to revive in a bid to free Oastler.***’ Oastler reprinted
this letter from ‘‘an old companion and fellow worker’’ with
delight, and the call was soon taken up. A leading supporter
was Joshua Hobson, who combined with his socialistic
Chartism a typically ‘‘Oastlerite’’ Protectionist philosophy;
indeed, the Anti-Corn Law League alleged that Hobson was

as bitter an enemy to the League as any other trader on passion

and prejudice, on ignorance and vanity, on false pretences and
shameless assertions.

The Leaguers considered that Hobson’s speeches were “‘a
mixture of Chartism and Toryism and a compound of hetero-
geneous absurdities’’.*'* But most factory reformers shared
Hobson’s blunt Tory-Radicalism and his hatred for the
League.

In November a Central Committee was formed at Brighouse
to plan a campaign to raise funds to secure Oastler’s release.
The only Leeds representative was William Beckett, who was
appointed treasurer. It was decided to organise a series of
meetings throughout the County, with Ferrand as the principal
speaker.**? The subsequent campaign was supported by
several Leeds men: Smithson joined the Central Committee
and spoke at Huddersfield and Keighley, Hobson spoke at
Halifax and Hill was the main speaker at Hull.**® A Leeds
committee was formed, with John Hutton as chairman and
Rider, almost inevitably, as secretary; members included
John Cawood, an old friend of Oastler, Goodman, Samuel
Smith, Joshua Bower, Hobson, the Chartist councillor John
Jackson of Hunslet, Baines, Atkinson, John Beckwith of the

112 See Self-Exposure of Mr Edward Baines (1843).

“? Leeds Intelligencer, 14 October, 1843.

“* The League, 23 December, 11 November, 1843; cf., for an attack on Ferrand,
Hobson, Oastler and Stephens, in extremely bitter language, N. Smith, The
League, The Tory Press and the Assassins (1844).

“° Northern Star, Leeds Intelligencer, 18 November, 1843. On William Beckett
(1784-1863), see R. V. Taylor, op. cit., 506-09, and Biographia Eboracensis (MS in
Leeds City Library), I, 61; Spence, of. cit., 46-52; Burke’s Landed Gentry (1846
ed.), I, 860; and G. C. Boase, Modern Biography (1892), I, 217.

"6 Leeds Intelligencer, 25 November, 9 December; Halifax Guardian, 16 Decem-
ber, 1843; Hull Packet, 5 January, 1844.

TE MISCELLANY

Inteligencer and John O’ Rourke. On 27 November delegates
interviewed Baines and obtained £5 from him, whereupon
Oastler determined to end his old antagonism.**’ Hobson,
Beckett, Hall, Smith, Bower, Hook, Smithson, the Rev.
William Sinclair and Peter Fairbairn were among other Leeds
contributors. But the greatest leader was Ferrand, who started
his campaign at Huddersfield on 22 November and delivered
a thundering oration in the Leeds Court House on 4 December,
with Cawood as chairman. The others speakers included Joseph
Lees, Edward Scruton, Dr George Bulmer, Hobson, Smith,
David Ross, James Green, Jackson and Smithson. Perhaps
Ferrand was the only speaker who ‘‘coincided with almost
every political sentiment which Mr Oastler had spoken or
written, that he knew of’’; but the cause united men of every
political creed.*** The Leeds committee organised local meet-
ings, including one in the Hunslet National School.**® And
Ferrand continued his tour through the West Riding and
Lancashire, crossed to Dublin in January, 1844, and ended
his energetic campaign with the twenty-second meeting at
Nottingham on 6 February.*”°

The Fund raised some £2,000, and over £1,200 was
borrowed from Beckett’s Bank, to purchase Oastler’s libera-
tion, on 12 February. Another campaign instantly began, in an
attempt to change Graham’s new Factory Bill into a ‘‘Ten
Hours’’ measure. Graham maintained his former proposal on
the youngest children, without the controversial education
clauses, and also intended to include women with ““‘young
persons’ in the limitation to 12 hours. Oastler reached the
North in time to lead the new agitation, arriving in Leeds on
26 February, when he met the committee in the Fleece Inn,
and spoke on the Ten Hours Bill and the repeal of the New
Poor Law.**’ After a holiday with relatives at Wold Newton,
he returned to the fray on 9 March, for an enthusiastic rally
in the Leeds Music Hall. Here the strength of the Movement
was amply demonstrated. Supporters included a strong con-
tingent of Anglican priests — the great reforming Vicar, Dr

"7 Northern Stay, 2 December, 1843; Fleet Papers, 16 December, 1843.
18 Teeds Intelligencer, Leeds Mercury, Northern Star, The Times, 9 December,

1843.
18 Teeds Intelligencer, 23 December, 1843.
120 Nottingham Journal, 9 February, 1844.
1 Teeds Intelligencer, 2 March, 1844.

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT II3

Hook,*** Thomas Nunns of S. Paul’s,’”* and J. Clarke of
Hunslet — along with Smith and Bulmer of the Infirmary,
Smithson and Hobson, who presided. Nunns strongly attacked
some manufacturers’ “‘love of filthy lucre’’ and Hook warmly
supported the reformers’ cause:

Our desire, our object, is to have the men of the working-classes

not overworked, and to emancipate the children and females...

I think that, engaged in such a cause, we are labouring not only

for the promotion of man’s happiness but for the promotion of

God’s Glory.
Local Chartists prolonged the meeting for an hour with their
rigmarole in favour of the Charter; but a Chartist leader,
Julian Harney, reaffirmed their support for the Ten Hours
pest

The campaign appeared to be succeeding when Ashley’s

amendment was passed on 18 March. From the new head-
quarters in the White Swan Inn, Rider’s committee instantly
thanked the 179 supporting M.P.’s and solicited their con-
tinued help.**? But four days later the Commons proceeded
to reject both Graham’s ‘““Twelve Hours’’ proposal and
Ashley’s ‘‘Ten Hours’’ amendment, thus causing a famous
impasse: the divisions, asserted the Leeds Times, were ‘‘most
confused and almost ludicrous’’.*”® Aldam of Leeds was one
of the five Members who had voted against both alternatives,
probably through supporting an ‘‘Eleven Hours’’ compromise.
Bitterly disappointed, the Northern reformers renewed their
efforts against Graham’s reintroduced Bill, starting a new
campaign in the Leeds Music Hall on 8 April, with Hook as
chairman. Clerical support had mounted still further: Clarke
and Nunns were now joined by the Reverends R. Wilson (of
the Grammar School), T. Brown (of Holbeck), R. Wardle (of
Beeston), G. Urquhart and T. Ferris. Other speakers included
the Chartists Hobson and Harney, and the Tories Oastler,
Matthew Balme (secretary of the Yorkshire Central Committee)

2 On Hook (1798-1875), Vicar of Leeds, 1837-59, see W. R. W. Stephens, Life
and Letters of W. F. Hook (1879), and C. J. Stranks, Dean Hook (1954).

%° On Nunns (d. 1854), see J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Part II, Vol.
IV (1951), 574. While perpetual curate of S. Barth’s, Birmingham, he had supported
social reform in his Letter to ... Lord Ashley on the Condition of the Working

Classes in Biymingham (1842). He moved to S. Paul’s in 1844 and to Holy Trinity
jin 1846. Hook edited his sermons in 1856 and his son Thomas became a Grammar
| School master.

34 Teeds Intelligencer, 16 March, 1844.

125 WW. Rider, The Short Time Bill, 20 March, 1844.

426 Teeds Times, 30 March, 1844.

II4 MISCELLANY

and Ferrand — who delivered a strong attack on Peel, Graham
and other politicians, which was to cause considerable con-
troversy.'*’ Hobson accompanied Oastler and Ferrand to other
Yorkshire meetings — and he invited the Whig leader, Lord
John Russell, a recent convert to restrictive legislation, to
visit Northern factories to see the facts for himself.*** But the
campaign was in vain; faced by Peel and Graham’s threats
of resignation, the Commons defeated Ashley and passed
Graham’s measure.

There followed another quiet period, during which reformers
carefully studied the division lists for future use. John Beck-
with produced a useful abstract of Graham’s Act and of
previous legislation, for the use of operatives.**’ Oastler lived
in retirement in Headingley, hoping to obtain some employ-
ment, but after his wife’s death in July he moved to London.
The main task of organising any future campaigns now lay
with the Central secretary, Balme of Bradford,**® but there
was little activity outside Lancashire until Balme roused an-
other Yorkshire campaign in April, 1845. The reformers were
disappointed at Ashley’s failure immediately to reintroduce
his proposal, which the hard-pressed leader thought ‘‘mon-
strously unjust’’. The discontent eventually became serious
enough to cause the Lancashire and Yorkshire Central Com-
mittees to call a joint conference at Todmorden on 8 June,
when the Leeds men were represented and Ashley’s difficulties
were explained.***

A new campaign developed in the winter of 1845, but by
this time the repeal of the Corn Laws had become the dominant
political topic. Ferrand conducted a rowdy campaign against
Lord Morpeth, the Whig “‘Free Trader’’ candidate in a West
Riding by-election, and held a riotous meeting in the Leeds
Music Hall on 28 January, 1846, when £20 worth of damage
was done to the chairs. The courageous Ferrand addressed a
hostile audience of middle-class free traders with one of his
usual speeches on behalf of various proletarian causes:

I am aware that in fighting (the workers’) battle, I have given
offence to some men with good coats on their backs. But I care

7 The Times, to April; Leeds Intelligencer, 13 April, 1844.

128 The Times, 12 April, 1844.

29 J. Beckwith, The Factory Worker's Guide to the Factory Acts (1844).

8° See my article, ‘“Matthew Balme, Factory Reformer’’ (Bradford Antiquary,
1960).

31 Morning Herald, 10 June, 1845; The Ten Hours Bill. Important Delegated
Meeting (Manchester, 12 June, 1845).

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT TES

not for their frowns whilst I have your favours. For, believe

me, working men, the time is come when you must take your

stand, or else become slaves for ever.
But League opposition was too strong even for Ferrand’s
stentorian voice. ‘‘You are a most shabby set’’, he roared at
League hecklers. ““The working men conduct themselves like
gentlemen, and the master manufacturers like blackguards’’.
Radical Leeds workers were divided in their beliefs: one
“Working Man’’ had urged his fellows to attend, ‘“‘in order
to hear the expiring groan of the Fiend Monopoly, from the
mouth of its Quixotic Champion’’. The Mercury was naturally
horrified by Ferrand’s claim to ‘‘fight the battle of Labour
against Capital’’, but obviously delighted in describing the
proceedings as “‘one continual scene of indescribable dis-
order’’.*** This was virtually the last appearance of Protec-
tionism in Leeds; and Ferrand’s campaign failed, after a series
of equally rowdy meetings.

As the Corn Law debates proceeded at Westminster, Ashley
resigned his seat, and was succeeded as Parliamentary leader
by the Radical John Fielden, with Ferrand as his seconder.
However, Ashley aided the campaign in Fielden’s support.
John Hutton and John O’Rourke, the chairman and secretary
of the Leeds committee, which now had rooms in Kirkgate,
organised a meeting in the Music Hall on 12 March, to hear
Ashley. They also invited Oastler, O'Connor, Fielden, Ferrand
and Hobson, who were all unable to attend. But the Vicar,
Dr Hook, delivered the speech of the evening, telling the work-
men that he was’”®

ready in this righteous cause to press forward with them to the
last gasp; and if a collision should occur between their interests

and the interests of a higher social class, they might depend upon
finding him at their side.

In April the Leeds committee chose one of the fourteen ‘‘Ten
Hours’’ delegates sent to canvass M.P.’s in Fielden’s support.
But on 22 May Fielden was defeated by 203 votes to 193.

The narrowness of the defeat provided encouragement for
a further campaign, which Yorkshire delegates planned at
Brighouse on 26 October.'** A series of meetings culminated

2 The Times, 30 January; Leeds Intelligencer, Leeds Mercury, 31 January,
1846; Ferrand poster, Brutal and Cowardly Conduct of the League (Leeds, 29
January, 1846).

3 Stephens, op. cit., II, 178.
4 Ten Hours Advocate, 31 October, 1846.

116 MISCELLANY

in an excited rally in the Leeds Music Hall on 30 November,
when Hook presided and Oastler and Ferrand were the prin-
cipal speakers.**’ On 27 December a large delegate conference
at Manchester rejected any compromise and asked Fielden to
reintroduce the Bill in the new year.***® William Beckett, who:
had considered the possibility of settling the question by
“Eleven Hours’’ legislation, returned to the traditional
cause;'*’ and Hook aided the Yorkshire Central Committee
to obtain the valuable support of the Bishop of Ripon.***
During the early months of 1847 every committee collected
petitions, and by 3 May Fielden’s Bill had finally passed the
Commons. The Lords agreed on 1 June and a week later the
Royal Assent was given to the Ten Hours Act.

V

Although further agitation was necessary to maintain the
effects of the measure, the passing of the Ten Hours Act in
1847 marked a turning point in nineteenth century social
legislation, The reform had been gained largely by the efforts.
of some 120 Short Time Committees, mainly in the West
Riding and Lancashire, whose efforts have rarely been recog-
nised. And from the start, Leeds reformers had played a con-
siderable role in this Movement.

As elsewhere, the factory reformers in Leeds represented
two distinct groups. One section consisted of representatives
of the Tory-Anglican circle of “‘old’’ families engaged at the
start of the period in a defence of the unreformed Corporation.
Sir John Beckett, head of the banking family, had been a
Whig minister in 1806, but was a leader of the Leeds Tories.
from the 1820’s, when he sat for Cockermouth and Haslemere.
His brother William represented Leeds from 1841 to 1852 and
Ripon in 1852-1857. Both were humane and philanthropic
men, warmly admired by Oastler. A close associate was Robert
Hall, the barrister son of Henry Hall (a Mayor of Leeds and
Tory leader). He became Recorder of Doncaster, Deputy
Recorder of Leeds and briefly M.P. for Leeds before his death
in 1857. Like Sadler, he began his social work through the
Sunday School movement, and in the 1830’s he financed the

8° The Times, Standard, 2 December; Leeds Intelligencer, 5 December, 1846.

6 Ten Hours Advocate, 2 January, 1847.

87 Tbid., 16 January, 1847.
*88 Hook to Balme, 7, 12 April, 1847 (in Balme Collection, Bradford City Library)-

LEEDS AND THE FACTORY REFORM MOVEMENT LL7

education of crippled factory children who had appealed to
Oastler for aid; in politics he played a considerable part as
an organiser of Sadler’s and Sir John Beckett’s election
campaigns.*°’ William Osburn was also a Sunday School
leader, and, like Sir John Beckett and Hall, was educated at
the Grammar School. His principal interests were Evangelical
theology and classical antiquities, on which he published
several books; and he spent several years as tutor to various
noblemen’s sons. The link between these various personalities
— and Sadler and surgeon Smith, a Churchwarden — was a
loyalty to the Parish Church. Much of their creed rested on a
social Christianity, based on practical experience of human-
itarian work during typhus epidemics and industrial slumps.
Throughout its history, the Factory Movement was largely
influenced by Anglican social witness.

The second section of factory reformers, largely consisting
of Radical operatives, is more difficult to trace. A succession
of officials controlled the Leeds committee, but few held their
offices for long or left their stamp on the Movement.**® Perhaps
the greatest personality was Joshua Hobson, a Huddersfield
joiner and handloom cotton weaver, who moved to Leeds as
a Radical publisher in 1834 and became a Chartist councillor
for Holbeck in 1843, editor of the Northern Star in 1843-1845
and a leader of a variety of Yorkshire Radical causes, But
Hobson returned to Huddersfield in 1846, becoming a local
government official and, finally, a Conservative journalist.
The most forceful and most loyal of Leeds Radical supporters
was William Rider, a rough stuff-weaver, printing worker and
Northern Star agent, whose uncouth figure was in the centre
of many violent arguments over factory reform and Chartism.
‘For 35 years’’, he declared in 1854, “‘I have belonged to the
same school, and still believe it to be the bounden duty of
every man to possess arms and to learn their use . . . I glory
in being of this good old school, and if on the brink of starva-
tion, I would prefer the bullet of a physical force opponent
to the speech of a moral force comforter’’.*** Few Leeds men

** On Hall (1801-1857), see Spence, 27-31, Taylor, of. cit., 466-71, and Susan
Hall, ““Some Notes on the Hall Family of Stumperlow and Leeds’’, Thoresby
Soc. Publications, XLI (1954), 4.

*#° In his list of leading operative supporters, S. Kydd (op. cit., II, 292) named
only John O’Rourke, Ralph Taylor and Robert Pounder (a Protectionist operative
friend of Oastler) of the Leeds committee.

*R. G. Gammage, History of the Chartist Movement (1854), 443.

118 MISCELLANY

shared this robust philosophy. Indeed, the Factory Movement
in Leeds suffered from the constant divisions in local Radical-
ism, which led to Leeds losing the primacy of the Yorkshire
organisation.

Leeds factory reformers faced different conditions from those
affecting the agitation in other West Riding towns. There were
few handworkers, who often provided vocal and militant
support elsewhere. There was an energetic opponent in Baines,
who had a considerable following. And, despite periodic
slumps, which caused widespread distress, conditions in Leeds
mills were not as generally unpleasant as those in other centres.
The Marshalls themselves provided a sick club and a school
and periodically reduced working hours;**? and Benjamin
Gott, the great woollen master, was, according to Oastler, a
sympathiser with the ““Ten Hours’’ cause, though opposed to
legislative restriction.*** But in spite of divisions, hostility and
apathy, the Leeds factory reformers maintained their campaign
through sixteen years and played their part in obtaining the
Ten Hours Act. These half-forgotten names deserve some notice
in the record of nineteenth-century social history.***

42 See W. G. Rimmer, ‘‘The Flax Industry’, The Leeds Journal, May, 1954,
and ‘‘Castle Foregate Flax Mill, Shrewsbury’’, Tvans. Shropshire Arch. Soe.
(1957-58), on the Marshalls’ mills.

148 Oastier in The Home, 1%, 22, 29 July, 1854.

144 This paper is mainly based on collections in the Leeds City Library, London
University Library, Cambridge University Library, Huddersfield Library and
Bradford City Library. I am indebted to the Librarians and their staffs for much
kind help.

PEPYS LEATHER INDUSTRY IN: THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY?

By W. G. RIMMER

I

WITH AN output of between £104 million and £12 million at
the dawn of the nineteenth century, leather-making was
Britain’s second largest manufacturing industry. A generation
later McCulloch estimated the production of leather goods at
#13 million a year and maintained that ‘‘the leather industry
ranks either third or fourth amongst those carried on in the
country, being inferior only, in point of value or extent to
those of cotton, wool and iron, if it be not superior to the
latter’.

The trade then provided a livelihood for nearly a quarter of
a million people.” The majority worked at home making boots
and shoes. But the production of leather from raw hides —
as distinct from the manufacture of leather goods — had never
been encompassed within the shell of household activity.
Although tanning and currying remained a handicraft based
on methods known to the Romans, it was carried on in tan-
yards and workshops. Even so, the scale of these operations
was small. A Select Committee enquiring into the effects of
Excise Duties on leather in 1813 discovered that the largest
half-dozen tanners in the country employed only six or seven
workmen. Using hides and skins produced by butchering live-
stock in town and village throughout the country, most leather

*I wish to thank Dr R. Reed and Dr F. O. Flint of the Leather Industries
Department at the University of Leeds for their advice, and I would also like to
acknowledge the debt I owe to the Directors of those firms in Leeds associated
with the industry whom I interviewed in October, 1957.

?J. R. McCulloch, A Statistical Account of the British Empire (1837), Vol. II,
118. See also W. Smart, Economic Annuals 1801-20 (1910), 20; M. G. Mulhall, The
Dictionary of Statistics (1892), 354. In the Times, 27 September, 1881, W. L. Jack-
son, M.P., a prominent Leeds tanner, ranked the industry ‘fifth in importance
among the trades of this Kingdom’’.

° This paragraph is based on McCulloch, Op. cit., 510 fs J. HH. Clapham, Ap
Economic History of Modern Britain: the Early Railway Age (1930), 167-70, 181;
M. Robbins, A New Survey of England, Middlesex (1953), 53; J. W. Waterer,
Leather in Life, Avt and Industry (1946), 126 ff.; J. W. Waterer, Leather and
Craftsmanship (1950), ch. 3 passim; the Leather Trades Review (hereafter cited
as LT .R:), 12) June, ‘1900.

D

I2Z0 MISCELLANY

workers simply catered for the needs of their immediate
neighbourhood. There were, Clapham thought, a hundred
thousand shoemakers scattered over the land in 1831 and
tanneries were no less ubiquitous. To be sure leather workers
seemed to congregate in some places more than others.
McCulloch commented on the number of tanneries to be found
in the vicinity of large towns, especially ports. Bermondsey
and Enfield, outside London, had been important centres for
tanning. The metropolis had over sixteen thousand adult male
shoemakers in 1831. For the most part, however, these con-
centrations reflect the distribution of the population. Of course
some places specialised in making consumer goods which
entered into the stream of intra-national commerce. Already in
the early nineteenth century Worcester and Yeovil had earned
renown for their gloves. Since the early eighteenth century
Northampton, Kettering, Wellington and Stafford had supplied
London shopkeepers with footwear and had exported small
amounts to the West Indies and North America. In each of
these towns between two and four thousand adult males made
leather wares in 1831, though outworkers dwelling in the nearby
countryside were numerically more important even in these
localities. Such districts earned a reputation for their products.
And the existence of a shoe manufacturer like Horton of
Staffordshire, who employed a thousand workmen towards the
close of the French war, indicates a substantial scale of
operations. Development in one place, however, was often
counterbalanced by stagnation elsewhere. Both Congleton and
Sandbach lost their place in the boot and shoe trade. But in
the majority of cases where specialisation occurred, the town’s
reputation arose from the high proportion of local resources
engaged in the leather trade and not from the scale of local
enterprise or from the town’s share of total national output.
For the most part making leather and leather goods remained
a small-scale, neighbourhood trade.

The diminutive scale of operations in Britain, especially in
tanning, presents a striking contrast to the situation on the
continent. In both France and Prussia, some tanners operated
on a large scale. This difference, Clapham considered to be
a sign of comparative backwardness in Britain, and he blamed
it on fiscal regulations dating from the early eighteenth century:

. . . the excise rules were an impediment to industrial integration

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY I2I

and a force working for the maintenance of the small scale, almost
medieval, organisation of tanning and its allied trades.4

But why did such a large industry allow these rules to remain
unchanged so long? Governments have seldom been insensitive
to entrepreneurial requirements, They frame laws affecting
industrial structure to meet the needs of the economy. It seems
probable therefore that before the nineteenth century most
English leather-makers did not want a change. Unlike some
continental producers who developed an important export
trade in high-class goods, British manufacturers catered for
the home market, mostly through local trade. Only 0.2% (by
value) of British leather wares went overseas in the early
nineteenth century.” So long as the market remained limited,
there was no pressure for integration in view of the range of
products produced at each stage. No one currier wanted the
whole of a tanner’s output, any more than a single shoemaker
or harness-maker wanted the whole of a currier’s output.
Variety of product and the extent of the market limited the
scale of operations more effectively than excise regulations.

Despite the existence of excise data, the performance of this
industry during the eighteenth century remains obscure.°
Leather output probably grew at a very low rate during the
second half of the eighteenth century and not at all in the first
decade of the nineteenth century. Then in the post-war genera-
tion production grew 3% each year. Since only 3% (by value)
of the goods produced in 1850 went abroad, this outburst of
growth was based almost wholly on home sales. Since popula-
tion grew at approximately 14% a year, the per capita
consumption of leather doubled between 1815 and 1850.

In this remarkable transition to a high consumption level,
output increased four-fold in a generation. This inevitably
affected production arrangements. First, by the 1820s tanners
wanted more livestock and oak-barks than native producers

“Clapham, op. cit., 324. See also Smart, op. cit., 487-88; A. Young, Travels in
France 1757-89, ed. C. Maxwell (1929), 305, 308. Differences in scale between British
and Continental producers must not be exaggerated. The overwhelming majority
of tanners in both areas operated on a small neighbourhood scale.

* Mouihall, op: cit., 354.

* J. Marshall, A Geographical and Statistical Display . . . of the Finances,
Navigation and Commerce of Great Britain and Iveland (1833), 2, 6-7; Mulhall,
op. cit., 354; W. G. Hoffmann, British Industry 1700-1950 (1955), 85-86, 282 ff.;
Diagram H and Table 54; T. S. Ashton, An Economic History of England: the
Eighteenth Century (1955), 60; T. S. Ashton, Economic Fluctuations in England
1700-1800 (1959), 39.

I22 MISCELLANY

could supply.’ The output of native hides grew only by 14%
to 13% a year. Pressure on prices attracted imports once
British prices exceeded the cost of collecting and transporting
foreign hides from countries with a surplus beyond their needs.
A raw material which otherwise would have been wasted now
entered the main stream of international commerce. In the
generation after 1820 hide imports grew by 6% a year. By
the 1840s British tanners used more foreign than native hides.
Thus the expansion of Britain’s leather industry was no longer
tied to the slaughter of native livestock. Henceforth the supply
of raw material varied with the demand for leather wares.
Furthermore, the flow of hides to Britain from the four corners
of the world had a steadying influence on prices. The industry
no longer suffered so severely from price fluctuations which
originated in the supply of hides being a by-product of the
overall home-demand for meat which was governed by a num-~
ber of factors including climate, farming arrangements and
relative prices. Buying hides was less of a gamble than it had
been fifty years earlier. Secondly, in the census returns of
1851, 37% of the tanners and 6% of the shoemakers employed
more than ten workers.* Although small-scale operations pre-
dominated in the trade, larger units had emerged and in some
cases employed over a hundred people. This development in
the generation after the French War was accompanied by
technical advances, mainly in tanning. The Select Committee
of 1816 referred to splitting machines, and the Revenue Com-
missioners of 1824 described a rapid process of tanning with
hot liquor. Writing in 1837, McCulloch claimed that the time
taken to tan a hide had been halved in recent years.’ The
methods of making footwear changed little. Increased output
required a pro vata addition to the labour force. In 1851,
274,000 workpeople were engaged in this branch of the trade.

"Estimates derived from Hoffmann, op. cit., Table 54; W. Schlote, British
Overseas Trade (1952), Table 12; Mulhall, op. cit., 354; A. D. Gayer, W :
Rostow and A. J. Schwartz, Growth and Fluctuation of the British Economy
1790-1850 (1953), Vol. II, 826. Pressure on prices can be deduced from the fact
that hide and leather prices fell much less than the prices of most things in the
post-Napoleonic war generation. See Gayer, Rostow and Schwartz, op. cit., Vol.
" eee from the table on p. 35 in J. H. Clapham, An Economic History of
Modern Britain: Free Trade and Steel (1932).

®* McCulloch, op. cit., 118 ff. See also the three Sel. Cttee. Reps. on the state of
the Laws relating to the Leather trade, Sess. 1816 (386), Vol. VI, 1, 93, 133;
Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the collection and manage-

ment of the Revenue, Sess. 1824 (331), Vol. XI, 141 ff.; and the articles on Leather,
Tannin and Tanning in A. Rees, Cyclopedia (1819).

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY I23

II

Abundant references to leather workers occur in Leeds news-
papers during the eighteenth century.*® Local tanneries were
sited in Leeds at Kirkstall and Weetwood, and outside at
Pudsey, Horsforth, Wike, Weeton, Idle and Baildon. But a
larger number could be found to the south around Wakefield
which had long been the principal market town of the valleys.
In 1379 a quarter of Wakefield’s burgesses assessed for tax
were tanners. Later when Leeds emerged as the market centre
for the lower Aire valley, one gild in the newly incorporated
town consisted of curriers, shoemakers, glovers and other
leather workers. To judge from the Poor Apprentice Register,
the numbers of masters in these trades increased in step with
the population throughout the eighteenth century. In 1797

-there were thirty shoemakers, nine saddlers and five curriers
in the town.** Newspaper advertisements indicate the nature
of their trade. At one extreme was Robert Taylor, a boot and
shoe maker, who had ‘‘laid in from London, a fresh assort-
ment of .. . Colour’d Leathers of all sorts; also the best Articles
for boots’’.** At the opposite end of the scale was Robert
Kendall who in 1777 had a Shoe Warehouse at the Back of
the Shambles where he made cheap shoes for retailers, and in
1809 Leeds had two ‘‘Cheap Shoe Warehouses’’.** There were
of course no tanners inside the central township. Though en-
geulfed nowadays by the spreading city, tanneries like mines
then stood outside the compact built-up area of a town. Their
location was dictated in part by water requirements and some-
times by proximity to woods, and in part it arose from the
offensive nature of the trade which made it unwelcome in a
densely packed residential and commercial district.**

In these respects Leeds was in 1800 like other large market
towns. Its tanners, curriers and shoemakers were not sufficiently
numerous in 1806 to be singled out for comment in a survey
of the town’s manufactures. Yet in his Directory of 1817,

For references to tanners, see Leeds Mercury, 8 January, 1722, 12 April, 1726,
25 January, 1743, 4 September, 1750, 13 February, 1770, 8 September, 1772; Leeds
Intelligencer, 24 September, 1773, 16 March, 1776, 29 August, 1780, 22 May, 1781,
27 July, 1795. :

™ The Leeds Directory for 1797; ‘‘The Court Books of the Leeds Corporation
1662-1705", in Publications of the Thoresby Society, XXXIV (1936), 11, 116; Leeds
Township Overseers of the Poor: Apprenticeship Register 1726-1808, LO/ARI in
Leeds City Archives.

% Leeds Intelligencer, 9 April, 1776.

% Leeds Mercury, 15 July, 1777; The Leeds Directory for 1809.

Lt dt jandasy: 1012.

I24 MISCELLANY

Edward Baines wrote ‘‘The leather trade is considerable’ in
Leeds.*°’ At that time there were six fellmongers, ten curriers
and sixty-six bootmakers in the town, and nine tanners out-
side the central township but within the borough. Seventeen
years later there were twelve tanners in the borough, twenty-
three curriers and nearly a hundred shoemakers in the town.
At the Census of 1831, 1,212 adult males (aged over 20) in
the town and liberty of Leeds made shoes, and 228 produced
leather. Ten years later 2,479 workers in the borough produced
leather or leather goods. In 1870-71, twenty-three tanneries
in Leeds employed nearly a thousand workers and sixty
curriers another thousand. More than seven hundred “‘shoe-
makers’? and a hundred ‘‘shoe manufacturers’’ gave work
to some three thousand employees.

Shortly after the mid-century Leeds became the second
tanning town in the country and first in sheep skins.*® By the
1870s ‘“‘the Leather Trade . . . [was] carried on in Leeds to
a larger extent than in any other town in the country’’.*’ In
the third quarter of the century, the town also became an
important centre for making ‘‘heavies’’, “‘heavy, medium
strong’’ boots for men ‘‘who have fairly rough work to do’’.*®
In the late 1850s, output ran around 15,000 pairs a week;
in the early 1870s at 30/ 40,000 pairs.*® After a generation of
expansion, producers radiated optimism. ““There was no
reason why this number should not be increased. No town
was so well adapted for its development’’.*® Twenty years
later weekly output reached 100,000 pairs of footwear. But
the mood had changed. Twenty years of dull trade from the

[Contd. on p. 126.]

** E. Baines, Divectory of Leeds for 1817, 40. Names of Directories have been
abbreviated. For their full titles see J. E. Norton, Guide to the National and
Provincial Directories of England and Wales, excluding London, published before
1860 (1950). Other sources referred to in this paragraph are A New and Complete
Directory of Leeds, 1807; Baines and Newsome, Directory of Leeds, 1834; W.
White, Directory of Leeds, 1870; Census of the Population, 1831, 1841, 1871.

*© In 1890 Leeds tanners must have produced about 8 per cent of U.K. leather
output. See Handbook for the British Association Meeting at Leeds in 1890 (ed.
LG. Maall),. 723.

7 Leeds Intelligencer, 10 June, 1871. See also Jackson’s New Illustrated Guide
to Leeds (1889), 209; Black’s Guide to Leeds (1868), 9.

*® J. H. Clapham, Free Trade and Steel, 96; Handbook of the Leeds Industrial
Exhibition 1926, 65-66.

19 Production estimates derived from Ward and Lock’s Guide to Leeds (1850),
24; Jackson’s New Illustrated Guide to Leeds (1897 ed), 39; T. Fenteman, An
Historical Guide to Leeds (1858), 39; J. Dodgson, An Historical Guide to Leeds
(1879), 40; Handbook for the British Association Meeting at Leeds in 1890 (ed.
L... Cs. Maal), 127:

2° J. Dodgson, An Historical Guide to Leeds (1879), 40.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 125

Table I
Numbers occupied in the leather trades in Leeds Borough
IS4I-IQ51

Skinner | Tanner Currier Saddler Shoemaker % LOTAL

Furrier Women
1841 64 85 230 100 2000 44 2479
1851 134 23% 422 ? 3351 20 4138
1861 153 440 732 143 3263 4731
Peay T* 125 719 1073 135 3108 5160
1881 209 S77 1742 177. 5827 20 8832
I89QI 229 867 2110 271 7662 20 T1137
Igo! 205 749 2023 288 FE 5d 10416
IQII 291 768 1897 186 5576 224 8718
LO2T 2190 1882 42 4072
1931 1884 2314 37 4398
IQ5I 1569 1859 29 3428

* only those over 20 years old.
Source: The Census of Population, 1841-1951.

Table II
Firms in the leather trade in the town and borough of Leeds
LTanners* Curriers Saddlers Boot and Shoe
Makers: Manufaci’rs \

1797 (Township) — 5 9 30 (township)

1809 ( es ) — 6 6 30 ( = )

1814 ( ” ) Se 9 ae I2 ( »” )

1816 (Borough) 8 10 9 au { =

wor 7. ghee: 9 10 13 66 (town & suburbs)
ES19, ( | 5 II | 25 (township)

1826 ( eg ee 16 ne 81 (town & suburbs)
£334 (( pe) ee 23 20 87 (township)
1853 ( el Ea 44 22 322 (borough)

yy i ee he 45 54 SOUND Wiss
PSST ow, F< 28 47 36 AOC aN ee O5
Bee37 (ok os, Je 19 43 43 457 A Was hid
meee Ce ie 5 ay 36 Ce re ae ee
POZO NT 8 14 07 224° ("5,30
1940 ( ia) 7 II Ti 152 ( tie) G6
E955 4) os! v) ih cae 3 SPAS toarolry
BOSS as «) moot 2 FS hom id 4282p qh FS

* Excluding those who were only oil dressers and tanners.

+ Shoe repairers.
Source: Leeds Directories in Leeds Reference Library.
Note: This table is intended only as a rough guide. The difference in
areas covered by successive Directories bedevils consistency. No
attempt has been made to distinguish between shoe repairers and shoe
makers. Certain relevant categories, e.g. fellmongers and leather
factors have not been included in this table.

126 MISCELLANY

1880s brought ‘‘anxious times’’.** A heavy complement of
failures evoked misgivings about decay. From the end of the
century the trade declined in Leeds. Tables I and II show how
the number of firms and the size of the labour force shrank.
Neither measure affords conclusive evidence of decline. The
adoption of new methods transformed productivity in the
industry. But if the declining labour force in Leeds is credited
with the average national gains in labour productivity that
occurred in both tanning and shoemaking during the twentieth
century, local output falls short of the levels attained towards
the close of the nineteenth century.**

Why then did Leeds become a major centre for tanning and
footwear? What were the main characteristics of this trade?
Why did the industry contract in the twentieth century?

It

When asked to explain why Leeds became a major tanning
centre, those in the trade emphasise the plentiful supply of
water in the city. To tan one hide requires some 250 gallons
of water. Large modern tanneries consume such vast quantities
that it is no exaggeration to say that “‘water is the life-blood
of the tanning industry’’.** This is true. But to what extent
was the availability of stream- (not well-) water a decisive
locational factor in the early nineteenth century? Tanners then
operated on a small scale. Sufficient water for their needs could
be found in most places. Those who stress the importance of
water as an explanation for the growth of tanning in Leeds
counter this reply by endowing the streams of the district with
essential qualities of softness and purity. Yet, as those in the
cloth trade knew, these qualities could be found throughout
the region. In any case, what importance did tanners working
by rule of thumb attach to the chemical qualities of water?
To be sure, they would avoid water containing iron because
it discoloured the skins. But “‘for most purposes in the tannery
permanent hardness is of little consequence’’.** Throughout
the nineteenth century tanners paid woefully slight attention
to the quality of the water they used.

aU LOR. 10. May, 1802.

22-7. W. Waterer, Leather in Life, Art and Industry (1946), 187,

7° M. A. Watson, The Economics of Cattlehide Leather Tanning (1950), 20.

24 L.T.R., 11 June, 1902. See also 14 March, 1899, 13 June, 1899 and 12 August,
1903.

i

EEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 127

The growth of tanning in Leeds during the second quarter
of the nineteenth century was more the result of strong market
forces operating to favour development in the town at that
time. In 1800 the districts around York and Wakefield had
more tanyards than Leeds. And both these ancient market
towns had as many, if not more, curriers, saddlers, and shoe-
makers than Leeds.*° Yet after the war, Leeds drew ahead in
all branches of the trade. This was chiefly the result of its
advantages as a market centre.

Two materials, hides and oak-bark, were then used by
tanners. Both were heavy and bulky and, in terms of their
value, more expensive to transport than finished leather wares.
Tanneries thus tended to be located near raw material supplies.
The influence of hides in determining location was much
stronger than the market for leather, and the influence of tan-
ning materials was stronger still. By comparison, other factors
such as fuel, water, labour and machinery were much less
important.*°

At that time cattle were slaughtered everywhere for local
consumption and hides came as a by-product of this process.
A populous borough like Leeds, with more people than the
next five largest towns in the clothing valleys taken together,
had the biggest supply of hides in the district. Furthermore
the borough’s population was growing rapidly. In the genera-
tion before 1811 the number of people in the parish doubled.
If this increase were to continue, Leeds would become still
more prominent as a meat market and generate an ever larger
supply of hides. No less important was the big influx of live-
stock into the entire clothing district. ‘““The whole country
from Leeds westward into Lancashire [did] not produce grain
or feed cattle sufficient to supply one-fifth of the inhabitants’’.*’
Half a million people lived in that area at the start of the nine-
teenth century. A generation later the number had doubled,
growing twice as rapidly as the population of the whole country.
To feed these people, a growing volume of corn and livestock
was imported into the district from the “‘north, south and

7° The Universal British Directory, 1790; E. Baines, Directory of the County of
York, 2 vols, 1822-3; Pigot’s Directory of Yorkshire, 1830.

7° For a numerical expression 'of the relative strength of these factors in the
United States, see E. M. Hoover, jr., Location Theory in the Shoe and Leather
Industry (1937), 118 ff. Broadly speaking, a hide yields a quarter of its weight
as leather; and less than a tenth of oak-bark provides active tannin.

27 J. Aikin, A description of the country, from thirty to forty miles round Man-
chester [1795], 574.

128 MISCELLANY

east’’.** When slaughtered, these beasts provided hides for
tanners. But the supply exceeded the needs of small neighbour-
hood tanners and many hides were sent to Leeds.

A scrutiny of the 1831 Census reveals the locational advan-
age of Leeds. In the West Riding 312 adult males were then
occupied in tanning; 193 worked in rural tanneries, IIg in
towns. But very few were to be found west of Leeds where the
population, and hence the consumption of meat, was heaviest.*°
The clothing district had scanty woodland. Oak-bark and
tannin could only be obtained from woods on the plain. The
result was that most tanners were located in the eastern part
of the West Riding.*® Leeds, the commercial capital of the
region sited at the cross-roads between the Pennines and the
plain, was thus well placed to secure hides from the west and
bark from the east. In 1809, if not earlier, fellmongers from
Horsforth, Morley and York bought hides and skins in Leeds.**
Some sixty thousand hides were sold annually at the Leeds
market between 1815 and 1820. In view of the volume and
prospects of the trade, the Mayor appointed inspectors to grade
skins and register sales at the bi-weekly market under the
supervision of a Committee of Six drawn from the trade.**

Initially tan-bark was readily available. Oak trees were
ubiquitous throughout the country. But less than 10% of the
bark contained active tannin so that even small tanneries
needed bark from considerable concentrations of trees.** In
many parts of the country timber was scarce by the later
eighteenth century. By contrast the West Riding (excluding
the hills) was favourably placed. Woods had not been exten-
sively cut earlier for industrial use. Coal had been used for
heating and there were no ironmasters or shipbuilders in the
clothing district. Many local estates remained intact until the
mid-eighteenth century. Accordingly tanners at first had plenti-
ful supplies of bark near at hand. Local estate and business

78 E. Baines, Directory of the County of York, Vol. I (1822), 420. Likewise into
the industrial districts west of the Pennines cattle came from Ireland, the North
and the South. Thus both Liverpool and Manchester became substantial tanning
centres. See Slater’s Directory of the Northern Counties, 1848, amd for Irish
cattle imported at Liverpool, Leeds Mercury, 4 January, 1834.

79 1831 Census of Great Britain.

5° Pigot’s Directory of Yorkshire, 1830.

5! Leeds Directory for 1809.

52 E. Baines, Divectory of Leeds for 1817, 40; Leeds Mercury, 1 November, 1817.
For a summary of the market returns, see E. J. Hobsbawm, ‘‘The British Standard
of Living 1790-1850’ in the Economic History Review, second series, Vol. X, no.
£4957), 107;

°8 A. Rees, Cyclopedia (1819), Vol. XXXV, ‘“‘Tannin’’.

ee ee

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY I29

records abound with such entries as this one for Middleton
Colliery in 1701,
To Mrs Wrigglesworth & Co rec’d of them one Moiety of £325

being the amo* of the Bark arising from the second years Fall
of Wood Bot of Walter Fawkes, Esq per Paym' of Mr Fenton.34

The abundance of hides in the clothing district and the supply
of bark from woods on the plain indicate the strategic situation
of an intermediate location for tanning. But why was Leeds
the growing tanning centre rather than Wakefield or even
Otley? Though its population was smaller, Wakefiteld had the
largest livestock market in the north-east, and the town was
just as favourably located for securing tan-bark. An additional
factor is thus required to account for the prominence of Leeds.
This was the fact that the demand for leather 7m Leeds was
larger than elsewhere in the district. Tanyards on the outskirts
of Leeds township had more leather users on their threshold
than any other town in the north-east. In 1809 there were
30 bootmakers in the town; in 1830, 102 plus 8 clogmakers
who used leather uppers. In 1809 there were 6 saddlers; in
1830, 18.°° Machine makers needed heavy leather for belting
and carding rollers, and somewhat lighter leather for loom
pickers and washers, A small army of craftsmen making gloves,
caps, bags and breeches, straps and upholstery used leather
as their raw material. And all these craftsmen made wares
for consumers within the borough and also for sale throughout
the region. Before tanning became important in Leeds, the
considerable demand for leather in the town had attracted
tanners from further afield. In 1809 when the parish had five
tanners (at Headingley, Kirkstall, Armley and Hunslet), eight
outsiders brought leather for sale in the town and congregated
in the Rose and Crown. Two came from Idle, two from Pud-
sey, one each from Lofthouse, Horsforth, Blubberhouses and
Selby.°° A decade later, in September, 1819, the Leeds Mercury
began to publish Leadenhall’s weekly leather prices.*’ Leeds
had become an important provincial leather market.

The confluence of these factors in Leeds in the early nineteenth

84 Middleton Colliery Journal, 27 April, 1791, 32 (MC 52 in Leeds City Archives).

°° The number of horses in the West Riding must have exceeded a hundred
thousand in the 1820s. See T. Baines, Yorkshive, Past and Present (n.d.), Vol. I,
95. J. R. McCulloch, op. cit., 119, put the value of footwear production in 1834
at £7 million and that of saddlery and gloves at £6 millon.

8° The Leeds Directory for 1809.

87 Teeds Mercury, 4 September, 1819.

I30 MISCELLANY

century created a situation that invited exploitation. Skins and
tan-bark and water could be secured there on terms at least
as favourable as in other nearby towns. In addition local leather
requirements, hitherto met to some extent by tanners from
outside the borough, were growing rapidly. To enter the trade
on a small scale required no more than a few hundred pounds.
Under these circumstances, several enterprising tradesmen,
including a shoemaker, an innkeeper and a whitesmith, began
to tan in Leeds towards the end of the war.** In 1816 the
borough had eight tanyards: three in Meanwood, two in Arm-
ley, and one each in Headingley, Kirkstall and Hunslet. In
1830 there were fourteen. Half-a-dozen tanners had premises
to the North of the town along Meanwood Beck which flowed
down a valley that had no domestic industry. Consequently,
sites there might be more readily obtained for such an offensive
trade. (An additional four firms were ‘“‘oil-leather dressers and
tanners’’ who had their workshops inside the central town-
ship.) By that time Leeds was the foremost tanning centre in
the region. In 1831 Leeds tanners employed 62 adult males,
half of those in the Riding’s urban tanneries. No clothing town
other than Dewsbury and Bradford had a tannery. Hull with
five tanneries and Doncaster with four ranked next after Leeds
in Yorkshire. And since the number of tanning firms in York
did not increase in the first quarter of the nineteenth century
whilst those around Wakefield actually declined, the concentra-
tion of tanneries in Leeds may have been to the detriment of
the trade in these former centres.

The factors that initially promoted the growth of tanning
in Leeds rather than elsewhere operated somewhat differently
in the second quarter of the nineteenth century to push the
borough still further ahead. Local bark supplies became scarce.
Regional demands for leather outstripped the quantity avail-
able from local livestock. On account of its position as an
inland port at the terminal of the Liverpool canal and the Aire
Navigation, Leeds was better situated than any other northern
centre to import hides and tanning agents from abroad. Leeds
tanners and leather producers, no longer dependent on local
materials, developed skills and techniques, generated capital

5° This paragraph is based on local directories 1797-1848, the 1831 Census
Report, and Leeds maps of 1815 and 1831. Quarterly Leather Fairs were inaugur-
ated at York in 1815 and a new cattle market was opened in 1826. The Fairs
were still held in 1850 but appear to have been discontinued shortly after.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY ESE

resources and established institutional arrangements, and pro-
duced a variety of leathers and wares that gave the borough
an undisputed advantage in terms of output and costs.

In the first place the quantity of hides and skins sold in
Leeds increased enormously. Part of this increase consisted
as before of hides from beasts slaughtered for local consump-
tion. The population of Leeds and the clothing district doubled
in the generation after 1821. Not only did the quantity of
livestock entering the region rise proportionately, but Leeds
dealers enlarged theiy share of the trade. Except for its cloth
halls, the town had no market buildings like those of Wake-
field in the early 1820s. Livestock sales still took place in the
narrow streets at the top of Briggate. In the five years after
1823, however, Middle Row was demolished and five market
halls, including a new Shambles, were erected at a cost of
nearly £90,000.°° Fortnightly cattle fairs, alternating with
those in Wakefield, began in 1827. Subsequently the trade in
livestock at Leeds expanded. Ninety thousand beasts — 92%
were sheep — went through the market in 1829. The Leeds
Intelligencer predicted hopefully that the market ‘‘will even-
tually become one of the most important out of London’’.*°
Six years later 120,000 beasts were sold there. Concurrently,
livestock sales at Wakefield “‘declined considerably’’ though
in 1835 its markets handled three times as many sheep and
twice as many cattle as Leeds. Not until railway development
in the 1840s did Leeds’ sales rival those of Wakefield simply
because that town was omitted initially from the strategic rail
network.

Assuming a hide to yield a quarter to a third of its weight
as leather, then the skin and hide sales at Leeds in 1829 pro-
vided raw material for 110 to 150 tons of leather. Two-hundred-
and-twenty tons of leather were sold, however,** and the
difference represents the extent to which local tanners relied
on outside supplies. Depending on transport and collecting
costs, hides went to the weekly markets in Leeds from farther
afield. As before, much came from places nearby with an

5° W. White, New Directory of the Borough of Leeds 1853, 23-24; .Jackson’s
New Illustrated Guide to Leeds (1889), passim; J. Mayhall, Annals of Yorkshire
(1878), Vol. I, 300-31, passim.

4° Leeds Intelligencer, 23 April, 1829. Statistics of livestock sales were reported
regularly in the local press, e.g. Leeds Mercury, 18 October, 1834, 1 November,
1834, and so forth.

41 For leather sales in Leeds during 1829, see Leeds Intelligencer, 22 January,
31829, 23 April, 1829, 10 July, 1829, 22 October, 1829.

132 MISCELLANY

excess of hides. For the country as a whole the supply of hides
from native cattle was geared to the national demand for meat.
But leather requirements grew faster than this. Upward
pressures on prices attracted hides from overseas. In the 1820s.
when the regulations governing the inspection of hides were
relaxed and leather duties lowered and repealed, a quarter of
the leather produced in the United Kingdom came from im-
ported hides. Over two-and-a-half million lamb and _ half-a-
million kid skins came into the country in 1827-28, chiefly
from France and Germany. In the 1840s imported hides
accounted for three-fifths of the leather produced.** In 1820,
perhaps earlier, sales of German horse hides occurred in Leeds.
In 1834, cheap inferior-quality, light dry-salted South Amer-
ican hides and sun-dried African hides, dry-salted East India
and Petersburg kips, Spanish and German skins were on offer
in the town.*° :

Tanning agents too were imported on an expanding scale.
Forty-five thousand tons of tan-bark came into this country
from Europe each year between 1827 and 1830.** Like all
major tanning towns, Leeds depended more and more on im-
ported tannins. Regular quotations of foreign bark prices
appeared in the local press: in 1833, for instance, tan-bark
from abroad ranged from £6 to £16 a ton.*® By then, other
agents had come into use. Early in the century, Sir Humphrey
Davy discovered tannin in a wide range of vegetable sub-
stances. Soon after the war, sumac and valonia were imported.
Between 1827 and 1830 six thousand tons of sumac and five
thousand tons of valonia came into the country annually from
Sicily and Italy. Fifty-per-cent of the material in these agents.
contains active tannin. And since mixed tannage proved
especially suitable for light skins they came into use quickly
at Leeds where goat, sheep skins and kips formed the bulk of
the trade by the 1830s.

In the second place, Leeds became the principal centre for

“J. Marshall, op. cit... 13720, 162:5; Mulhall, of: cit.,0354> “Smart, cpr vars
Vol. -Il,.22r; Gayer, Rostow & Schwartz, of. cit., Vols IL, $53; Clapham, .7 re
Early Railway Age, 323-5.

48 Leeds Intelligencer, 22 January, 1829: Leeds Mercury, 18 January, 1834..
Hides and skins were displayed and then auctioned each Saturday at noon in
the Vicar Lane market: see T. Fenteman, A Historical Guide to Leeds (1858),
44. In the 1870s two firms held auctions; see J. Dodgson, A Historical Guide to
Leeds (1879), 43.

#47, "Warshall,, Op. ‘ert:, 137.

45 Leeds Intelligencer, 28 December, 1833.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 133

supplying light leather and certain leather goods to the rest
of the country. The town’s leather sales reached such propor-
tions by the mid-182o0s that the trade instituted a quarterly
leather fair. This took place in the South Market, which had
been opened in 1826 for the sale of general provisions in the
district south of the river. It failed to fulfil the expectations of
its shareholders, however, whereupon they leased it for leather
sales. The first fair, held in October, 1827, indicated its
potentialities :

The situation is the best that could possibly have been selected,
both from the great internal convenience of the place, and also
from its being so contiguous to the river, where purchasers may
readily despatch their goods to any part of the kingdom. Early
in the morning the market place was exceedingly full of leather
of all descriptions, indeed it was, perhaps, the largest show that
has been seen out of London, and some say in the Kingdom at
any one time, amongst which we saw some ‘“‘prime stuff’’; nor
should we probably exaggerate in saying, that there was above
£100,000 worth offered for sale.4¢

Tanners, curriers and factors came from afar. Sixty-two
tanners displayed leather for sale in 1830: twenty-four were
from Leeds and its environs, thirty-eight from afar — seven
from Hull, three from York, others from Gainsborough, Lin-
coln, Nottingham, Worksop, Sheffield, Rotherham, Beverley
and Malton.*’ Buyers travelled even longer distances. Some
came of course from Leeds and nearby Halifax and Bradford,
but others journeyed from London, Manchester, Liverpool and
Stafford. Although heavy sole leather was on offer, by the
mid-century these fairs constituted the first market in the
country for light leather of the sort used in coach-linings, chair
covers, ladies’ shoes, slippers, hat and cap linings, pocket
books, gloves and bookbindings. Two hundred tons of leather
were offered for sale in 1828.** Four years later, three hundred
tons. The following year, four ‘‘intermediate’’ fairs were

“° Leeds Intelligencer, 18 October, 1827.

““W. Parson and W., White, Directory of Leeds . . . York and the Clothing
District of Yorkshire (1830), 212. Tanners from outside the Borough who attended
the Leather Fairs are usually listed in Leeds Directories; e.g. in White’s Directory
for 1853, besides the 14 tanners within the Borough, 56 outsiders regularly attended

the fairs from Eastern parts of England between Lincoln and Newcastle-upon-

| Tyne.

_ 48 The quantity and average price of leather sold was reported regularly in
the local press. See, for instance, Leeds Intelligencer, 17 January, 1828, 24 April,

1828, 16 October, 1828, ov, for 1845, Leeds Mercury, 18 January, 19 April, 19 July,

18 October.

134 MISCELLANY

introduced, Four hundred tons were sold in 1834, five hundred
and twenty-five in 1840. The South Market could justifiably
be regarded in 1868 as ‘‘the largest leather market out of
London’ ,**

Most of this leather would be consigned via the Navigation
and later by rail to manufacturers in the Midlands. But some
would be processed locally in the borough. Machine-makers
wanted heavy leather for transmission belting and carding
rollers. Peter Fairbairn contended in 1841 that Leeds was ‘‘the
seat of the chief flax-machine establishments, I may say for
the whole world’’.’® This industry then had eighteen firms,
many also supplying the woollen industry. In addition there
were a further twenty-five machine-makers catering for the
woollen and worsted industry.°* A second source of demand
came from glovers, hatters and bookbinders who wanted light
leathers. Furthermore Leeds had twenty-two saddlers in 1853
and fifty-four in 1872 who used heavy leather to make harn-
esses, Because these firms provided for more than local needs,
two fairs specially for saddlers were held annually in July
and November. The largest local demand for leather, however,
came from boot and shoe makers. In 1831, seven thousand
adult males were making shoes in the West Riding.°* Half
dwelt in towns, and one thousand two hundred and fifteen or
a third of these urban shoemakers lived in Leeds though that

town had less than a third of the urban population of the

Riding. At that time Leeds had one hundred and two shoe-
making firms.°* Next came York with seventy-six; then
Bradford with forty-six, Wakefield with forty, Halifax with
twenty-nine and Dewsbury with seventeen. A generation later,
in 1858, three thousand workpeople made three-quarters of
a million pairs of boots in Leeds. By 1870 local output had
risen to one and a half million. Leeds became renowned for
its branded footwear. Its medium-heavy riveted boots, cheap
at 15/- a pair, found a ready market among working men
in the North.**

4° Black’s Guide to Leeds (1868), 9. See Leeds Intelligencer, 10 June, 1871, for
a criticism of its facilities.

5° Evidence of P. Fairbairn, Q. 30098, before Sel. Cttee. Rep. Exportation of
Machinery, 1st Report (1841), 210.

54 W. White, Directory of the West Riding, 1837.

52 1831 Census of Great Britain.

55 'W.. Parson, and W. White, od. cit.

4 L1.k., 7 June, 1892. See also footnote. 19;

a

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY r35

IV

By the third quarter of the century Leeds had gained promin-
ence as a shoemaking centre. Although the number of boot-
makers in the town grew faster than the population between
1800 and 1840, the ratio of shoemakers to population was no
higher than in other nearby towns. In 1834 there were 87
makers in Leeds and gI in the out-townships: 23 in Hunslet;
14 in Bramley; 12 in Armley; rz in Chapeltown; ro in Hol-
Meck, © in Worley; 5 in Headingley; 3 in-Farnley; 2 in
Burley; 2 in Potternewton and 1 in Beeston. Of the 1,215
adult male workers making shoes in 1831 (at least four-fifths
of those in the local trade), half were in Leeds township and
the remainder elsewhere in the borough. They worked for the
most part in small craft shops each employing on average
eight men. Before setting up on his own, Robert Spurr worked
as a journeyman with ten other men in a shop at Rodley and
with five others in Bramley. At that time, however, there was
nothing unusual in either the scale of operations or the dis-
tribution of shoemakers in the borough, except for the number
of firms in Armley and Bramley.°**

During the 1840s the numbers engaged in this trade in-
creased by two-thirds in Leeds, from 1,996 in 1841 to 3,351
in 1851. Whereas in 1841 only 5% of the labour force was
female, the proportion rose to a fifth ten years later. Thus
half the addition to the labour force in the 1840s consisted of
female employees. No corresponding increase occurred in the
number of enterprises. It therefore follows that the average
number of workers per firm increasd. Organisations grew up
which employed a larger number of hands.

Two developments took place. First, some large firms
evolved. In 1858 two wholesale manufacturers turned out two-
thirds of the shoes made in Leeds. Stead and Simpson operated
a leather plant in Meanwood valley (where they pioneered
patent leather in this area) and a boot “‘warehouse’’ in Kirk-
gate which employed between 1,200 and 1,500 people who
made six to seven thousand pairs of boots a week. Conyers
whose warehouse was in Boar Lane employed six hundred and

°° Baines and Newsome, Directory of Leeds, 1834; R. Spurr, Autobiography of
a shoemaker in Bramley [1867]. (Unless otherwise indicated, occupational figures
and numbers of firms cited hereafter have been derived from the Census Reports
and Leeds Directories.) For an account of the structure of this trade in London,
see M. D. George, London Life in the 18th century (1925), 196-202.

136 MISCELLANY

produced four thousand pairs a week. Simpson had been a
shoemaker who started on his own in a small way in 1834.
But both Conyers and Stead had been curriers who ventured
into making cheap ready-made shoes on a large scale. This
was a logical step to take. Because curriers held large stocks
they were men of substance by comparison with others in the
leather trade. Instead of selling small pieces of leather to
independent shoemakers, these curriers decided to enter the
boot trade themselves on a large scale. Of course these partic-
ular firms did not exist as shoemakers in the 1840s. But there
may have been others like them. In the Census returns of
1851, 694 or 4% of the firms employed over ten men, and
69 firms over 50.”°

If such firms evolved during the 1840s in Leeds, how did
they operate? Did they ‘“‘put-out’’ to domestic shoemakers?
Were their warehouses linked to ‘‘manufactories’’ like those
in Leicester? °’ If they were, this would facilitate specialisation
and effective supervision though neither steam power nor
treadle was used in production. Or did these large firms com-
bine both systems?

The evidence is insufficient to be sure what happened.
According to the 1851 Occupational Census the local trade
employed:

Adult males, 2,181 : males under 20, 517.
Adult females, 531 : females under 20, 121.
“Shoemaker Ss. wite’', 1.157:

Women had long been associated with the trade. A shoemaker’s
wife worked alongside her husband and his assistants as a
‘““closer’’, stitching the three sections of the upper leather cut
out by the clicker. The significant point in this enumeration
is the entry of females under two occupational categories.
Perhaps it merely denotes their marital status. More likely
it indicates their role as full-time employees in workshops. If
this was the case, the large manufacturer making cheap ready-

°° J. H. Clapham, Free Trade and Steel, 35; T. Fenteman, An Historical Guide
to Leeds (1858), 38-39; J. Dodgson, An Historical Guide to Leeds (1879), 40;
L.T.R., 14 December, 1904. Stead and Simpson introduced patent leather into
the Yorkshire trade around the mid-century and according to Dodgson, they
were ‘‘the largest shoe manufacturing firm in the world’’ in 1878.

°7 e.g. The Midland Shoe Manufactory of Messrs. J. Preston & Sons erected
a ‘“‘New Warehouse and Manufactory’’ in 1860. In addition to employing ‘“‘a
large number of workmen in their own manufactory’’, they provided “a still
larger proportion of operatives . . . with work at their own homes’’. See the
Official Illustrated Guide of the Great Northern Railway (1861), 91-93.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY LAF:

mades had already made his appearance in Leeds. Boot uppers
would be cut and stitched in a central workshop and then put
out to journeymen who would add the sole in their own homes.
Since cutting machines and sewing machines did not come
into use until the 1850s, curriers presumably entered this end
of the trade on such a scale in order to reach a wider consumer
market and to take advantage of an extreme division of labour.
Such developments took place in response to a situation in
which the demand for cheap shoes rose precipitously without
a corresponding change in mechanical equipment to transform
labour productivity.’®
We can be more sure about the second line of development
which coincided with the first in so far as it involved out-
workers. In the third quarter of the century, the south-western
out-townships, in particular Bramley, became well-known for
their boots.’” The roots of this localisation within the borough
go back to the 1840s when Bramley shoemakers produced
twelve hundred pairs of heavy hand-sewn boots which they
sold each week in the Saturday markets at Leeds or Bradford.
The concentration of this trade in and around Bramley was
not initially due to the presence of tanneries. This township
had only one tanner in 1822 and later in 1847. The heavy
leather that was used came from Leeds, four miles away. One
locational factor was the proximity of Bramley to consumers
in Leeds and beyond via the canal. Nonetheless other out-
townships were as favourably situated in this respect. Boot-
making developed in Bramley rather than in Holbeck, Hunslet
or Headingley because of its peculiar labour situation.
Like other southern out-townships, Bramley and Armley
had long been ““populous clothing villages’’. The traditional
-economy of these villages had not changed much by the 1830s.

°° The Handbook of the Leeds Industrial Exhibition (1926), 65-66, states that
“The boot factories in and around Leeds started about 1867’’. The idea of factory
production is thus associated with the introduction of a treadle press for cutting
leather and a thread machine for stitching uppers — machines which did not
| require any other power than human effort. Big workshops, or factories without
) such machines, probably existed before this. In White’s Directory of Leeds for
| 1853 no fewer than sixteen of the 322 listed ‘“‘Boot and Shoe Makers’’ were
“Wholesale Manufacturers’’.

°° The following paragraphs are based on E. T. Carr, Industry in Bramley
(1938), 33-42; Poor Law Survey of Bramley Township in 1823, (LO/B5 in Leeds
1 City Archives); Baines, Divectory of the County of York, 1822; White’s Directory
| of Leeds, 1847; Ordnance Survey Map, 1850 Edition; R. Spurr, op. cit.; ‘“Report
upon the condition of the Town of Leeds’ in the Journal of the Statistical
| Society, Vol. II, 1839;R. Baker, ‘‘On the Industrial and Sanitary Economy of
the Borough of Leeds in 1858’, in Jnl. of the Royal Statistical Society, XXI
| (1858); Factories Inquiry Commission, 1834, Supplementary Report, Part II.

138 MISCELLANY

In 1834 Bramley had a hundred and one cloth manufacturers
and eight to ten mills, scribbling, slubbing, fulling, and in one
instance spinning. The domestic mode of cloth production,
although under pressure owing to developments in Leeds and
its immediate suburbs, was not seriously impaired. Each of
these mills employed around fifty hands, mostly male. The
remaining men in the district and their womenfolk would
still weave and spin at home, Towards the mid-century, how-
ever, the structure of the industry changed. Mills to spin flax,
woollen and worsted yarn had sprung up everywhere in the
borough. These textile factories used a preponderance of
female and juvenile workers. For instance, two-thirds of the
610 employees in Stansfeld’s worsted mill at Burley were
female. These developments created no problems in suburbs
like Holbeck or Hunslet. Clothiers had vanished from these
out-townships and the men had been absorbed in a host of
new industries, especially engineering. A shortage rather than
a surfeit of labour was a common complaint in such townships.
But further away from the central township, female and
juvenile employment in mills posed certain problems. Male
labour was displaced. The big increase in labour productivity
in mill-spinning threatened workers of both sexes with redund-
ancy in outlying districts. Bramley had three worsted and six
woollen mills in 1847 and a population of nine thousand people.
These mills engaged a high proportion of the town’s young
women. Men still sat by handlooms. But they thought anxiously
about the future. The trade had become overcrowded, their
long-run survival seemed in jeopardy. In such a community,
an alternative like bootmaking appeared doubly welcome. In
the short run it promised financial amelioration. A shoemaker
working ten months a year earned 14/- a week on piece-work
at 2/7d. a pair. This was more than a weaver could expect.
Secondly, as Robert Spurr’s autobiography shows, bootmakers
adhered to traditional methods and worked in small units.
Some congregated in workshops. Many worked at home where
they directed their own families. Apprenticeship which enabled
a father to train his son remained the usual method of entering
the trade. This arrangement enabled a man to keep his family
intact and avoid its dispersion in factories. As a result, the
survival of closely-controlled families characterised life in such
villages long after it had disappeared in towns.

Many Bramley families transferred from one sort of domestic

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY I39

work to another. They made boots instead of cloth either as
independent masters or more frequently for a ‘‘merchant-
manufacturer’. During the generation when this system
flourished new methods were absorbed into cottage produc-
tion. The hand-pegged boot which quickened production in
the 1850s and the sewing machine operated by a treadle did
not constitute a threat to small-scale domestic methods. The
shoemaker’s wife remained a familiar figure until the triumph
of factory production in the last quarter of the nineteenth
centurv.

Vv

In 1834 there were 12 tanners in the borough; in 1872, 23;
in 1890, 23; in 1914, 15; and in 1940, 7.°° These numbers
indicate the growth and contraction of tanning in Leeds some-
what imprecisely because they do not take into account changes
in the scale of operations and changes in the proportion of
firms of different sizes. Writing in the 1880s, Jackson stated
that “‘fifty years ago this trade was confined to a few old-
fashioned open tan yards’’.°* In the early 1830s Leeds tanners
employed on average four men. William Nickols was typical.
In 1823 he owned fourteen acres of land in Bramley, yet his
tannery covered only three roods and three perches. It con-
sisted of a ‘‘Tanhouse, a Mill and Scouring Place with Bark
Chamber over . . . Bait House, Lime House, Grinding-Place
and Tan-Yard’’, with one pit. Nickols probably employed
five men who lived in nearby cottages. Altogether this property
was valued for assessment at £41. 15s. rod.”

To start such an enterprise required little capital. The
prospective tanner first rented or bought a small piece of land
by a stream. The purchase prices paid can be found in the
West Riding Land Registry. Sufficient space for a yard and
several out-buildings could be acquired for £100. Essential
equipment cost very little. By comparison, working costs
seemed formidable, not in labour but in hides, tanning agents
and fuel which amounted to between two-thirds and three-

°° These figures are only approximately correct: e.g. in Slater’s Directory of
Leeds and District, 1890, there are 31 tanners listed, 23 of whom were in the
borough. Writing in the Handbook of the British Association Meeting at Leeds
in 1890 (ed. L. C. Miall), W. Beckworth, a prominent Leeds tanner, stated (p.
123) that there were ‘‘twenty-one tanneries within the borough’’.

) *t Jackson’s New Illustrated Guide to Leeds (1897 ed), 39.

°2 Poor Law Survey of Bramley Township in 1823, 241-4 (LO/Bs5 in Leeds City
_ Archives).

140 MISCELLANY

quarters of variable costs. With a few hundred pounds, how-
ever, a man could enter the trade and produce twenty hides
and skins a week. The prospect attracted many people:
farmers’ sons, leather dressers, innkeepers, and ambitious
tannery employees, all of whom would lure a few skilled work-
men from one of the existing yards to help them start off on
their own. This avenue of common entry remained open until
the last quarter of the century. William Paul was a journey-
man currier before he started tanning on his own in 1866 in
Rockingham Street. William Stead, who acquired Sheepscar
Leather Works in 1904, began as a bookbinder in Ventnor
Street twenty years earlier. Yet despite the continuous flow of
newcomers the trade did not consist simply of small uniform
units. In the late 1830s two tanneries towered over the local
industry. But “‘it was [then] an exception to see here and
there large works like the old “‘Joppa’’ Tannery, like a huge
mountain overshadowing a number of small factories’’.*°
Subsequently the average scale of operations did increase and
“many [small early firms] have grown into large dimen-
sions’’.°* In 1850 the average tanner employed 16 men; in
600; 25; in 1870, 31; 1n 1880, 38; and 11000, 30. 4n te
late 1860s six large firms dominated the trade. A generation
later eight major tanners together employed nearly two
thousand workmen, about two-thirds of those tanning and
currying in Leeds. At that time the number of firms had begun
to diminish, with the result that proportionately more medium
and large tanners remained. W. Cheater, who set up in 1870
as a tanner, currier and wholesaler in St. Peter’s Place, had a
typical medium-sized business.°? He employed seventy men
at his tannery in Armley. Below such integrated firms were
sixteen tanners and forty curriers operating in the late 1880s
on a small scale. On average, each of them employed nineteen
workers — the curriers more, the tanners less. But even their
output, ‘‘a few hundred tanned East India Kips weekly’’,
was five times more than a small tanner produced half a century
earlier.°° As the years passed, however, large scale produc-
tion increasingly predominated. And this poses a question:
what forces promoted the growth of bigger firms?

* L.T.R., 14 January, 1896.

°5 Industries of Yorkshire (1887), Part I, 138.
667 T.R., 14 January, 1896.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY I4l

The small tannery which in the early nineteenth century
employed a handful of men and consisted of a few open-air
pits operated at a low level of efficiency. A severe frost in
winter or a water shortage in summer suspended work. Parts
of a plant such as the drying room or grinding mill were
chronically under-utilised. The performance of the tannery as
a whole was geared to the tan pits where hides stood from six
to eighteen months. This was a bottleneck. Tanning was such
‘““a slow, difficult and tedious operation’’ that tanners had no
incentive to introduce fleshing or hairing machines.®” With a
small output and with an erratic use of resources, productivity
was low and tanning expensive.

A larger scale of operations enabled tanners to combine the
factors of production more efficiently. With additional pits,
labour and other inputs could be more efficiently utilised. And
the invention of new machines strengthened the pressures for
operating at a technical optimum. Even more important in
tanning than the cost of mechanical equipment were the
increasing outlays on land, hides, bark and lime. The optimum
size of plant depends, of course, on the kind of leather made
and the extent to which known mechanical processes are
utilised. But in 1913 the minimum scale for effective operation
called for an outlay of not less than £50,000.°* Plant and
buildings would cost £35,000; a hundred and twenty men
using ‘‘mixed tannage’’ produced 1,200 hides each week;
5,000 raw hides would be held in stock. On this scale all
factors would be employed continuously. Thus one reason for
growth was to improve efficiency and lower average costs.

This motive, though important, does not in itself entirely
explain the appearance of big firms. No doubt slight reduc-
tions in average costs had considerable impact on total profit
in tanneries with a large turnover. Until some large firms have
been studied in detail, however, the ‘‘economies of scale’’
argument remains hypothetical. Many small manufacturers
continued to make a profit and had a secure niche in the
trade.°’ More crucial, many firms expanded beyond any
reasonable concept of technical optimum. Most large tanners
had more than one “‘balanced set of equipment’’. For instance,
in 1896, the Joppa tannery had four engines and boilers, six-

i TR, ie October, rors

“L.t i, 20 May, 191s. See also 10 April, to00,; 20 December, 1902.
PE cd Pts FIO, Guly, 1900.

I42 MISCELLANY

teen fulling stocks, eleven splitting machines, seven rolling
machines, four sheepskin brushing machines, three fleshing
machines, two scouring machines and two spent-tan presses.
When Wilson, Walker and Co. became a limited company in
1893, its capital was fixed at £400,000. When the Viaduct
Tannery failed in 1914, apart from land valued at £37,000
and plant worth £12,883, it had unsecured liabilities of
457,710. A Keighley tanner with a capital of £35,000 was
considered small in 1895.‘° Many tanners probably operated
on a bigger scale than technical efficiency necessitated. This
presupposes other reasons for bigness. An entrepreneur who
possessed or could borrow additional resources might keep on
expanding his business in order to augment his total profits
and to enhance his standing in the trade — provided that de-
mand remained buoyant, his average costs did not rise and
the return on his extra outlay seemed reasonable. But the big
operator also sought a further advantage: the profitability of
power.

A large tanner locked up the major part of his working
capital in hides, skins and tanning agents. Each week he would
purchase perhaps twenty thousand hides by auction and he
might carry half a million on his premises. In the long run,
growing imports resulted in steadier raw material prices. But
a change in prices, however slight, could seriously affect a
manufacturer’s prospects in the short run. Operating on a
large scale minimised such risks. The small producer with
slender resources who bought on a hand-to-mouth basis could
be easily trapped by a sudden price change. The large firm
had a better chance of mastering such contingencies, even to
the extent of influencing prices. Furthermore, whereas small
tanners frequently specialised in one .type of leather, the big
producer tanned and curried leather ‘‘for a great variety of
purposes’’.’* He was thus less exposed to vagaries in demand.
Nickols supplied leather not only for uppers and upholstery
but also for soles and belting. At the end of the century most
large tanners also produced leather for bags, straps, cases,
gloves and garments, harness, sports-gear and book-binding.

The entrepreneur committed to a large turnover and a variety
of goods sought every opportunity to lower costs. He regarded

7° These illustrations are selected from amongst many in the L.7.R., 8 Janu-

ary, 1895, 7 April,: 2896, 14 October, 1903, 15 April, tor.
‘LL. Uk. 14 January, 1606.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 143

leather manufacture no longer as a handicraft but as big
business. The result was that he regulated and improved his
methods and routines. This tendency is reflected in the columns
of the Leather Trades Review at the end of the century. Many
important advances took place before the advent of mechanical
tanning. Splitting machinery introduced in the 1860s, for in-
stance, enabled a workman to take four splits quickly from
a single hide.’* This raised labour productivity and econom-
ised on the use of an expensive raw material. By that time
too, tanpits were covered with a roof to protect operations in
inclement weather. Steam-engines came into use as a source
of power for fulling-stocks and grinding mills. And by con-
centrating on lighter hides and experimenting with new tanning
agents, the period of production was abridged. Large firms
thus began to liberate themselves from a laborious, unpleasant
and time-consuming process of manufacture.

Undoubtedly the best known leather firm in Leeds in the
third quarter of the century was the ‘‘Joppa’’ Tannery.** Its
proprietors, the Nickols family, had been associated with the
trade since the mid-eighteenth century. In 1823 Richard
Nickols had a small tannery in Bramley. Five years later he
went into partnership with a currier, Peter Rhodes, and they
acquired premises in Kirkstall Road on the outskirts of the
town. When Rhodes died in 1844, Nickols concentrated on
tanning. Between 1851 and 1856 he again went into partner-
ship, this time with John Patterson, presumably to acquire
capital for expansion. In 1858 the Joppa tannery covered
four acres and had five hundred covered pits. Its machinery
comprised a 30 horse-power engine, twelve pairs of fulling
stocks to soften the imported hides that were used, several
splitting machines and a rolling machine. The drying sheds
accommodated fifteen thousand hides and the upper leather
that was produced went to Northampton, Leicester, the

%L.T.R., 11 December, 1900; The Official Illustrated Guide of the North-
| Eastern Railway (1861), 463, 478.

|” The following paragraphs are based on Black’s Guide to Leeds (1868), 9; T.
|Fenteman, Historical Guide to Leeds (1858), 37-38; H. Yorke, Leeds Past and
| Present (1997), 83-4; Leeds Sketches and Reviews [n.d.], in Leeds Reference
|Library (L.Q. 380/D26); J. Dodgson, Historical Guide to Leeds (1879), 39-40;
i The Official Illustrated Guide of the North-Eastern Railway (1861), 463, 468;
|The Handbook of the British Association Meeting at Leeds in 1800 (ed. L. C.
Miall), 123; Industries of Yorkshire (1887), Part I, passim; L.T.R., 12 May,
|} 1891, 13 August, 1895, 12 November, 1895, 7 April, 1896, 12 October, 1897, 10
January, 1899, 13 June, 1899, 14 November, 1899, 9 July, 1902, 14 October, 1903,
113 March, 1907, 13 July, 1910, 21 December, 1910, 17 January, 1912.

144 MISCELLANY

Continent and North America. In addition, at the Hill-Top
Tannery in Bramley, Nickols had a further 360 pits making
heavy leather for soles, straps, harness and coach hides. The
founder of this firm, who died in 1879 at the age of 77, was
a key figure in the Leeds trade. To his credit stands not only
the creation of a large enterprise but also the introduction
locally of East India kips in the 1830s and the use of gambia,
valonia and sumac in place of tan-bark, When he retired in
1869, Richard Nickols handed over to his two sons — Richard

Il and Harold — and to William Beckworth (1841-1911),

hitherto the works-manager at Joppa. A few years after his
father’s death in 1884, Harold Nickols set up on his own in
a Kirkstall tannery formerly owned by Conyers, and he em-
ployed 130 hands and produced 2,700 hides a week in 1888.
Richard Nickols II (born in 1847) died in 1891, and Beck-
worth, in order to provide for his own two sons, left Joppa
and founded the Viaduct Tannery. Bereft of leadership, the
Joppa and Hiull-Top Tanneries were put up for auction
in 1895 and offered for sale in 1896.

Another big tanner in the 1860s was Wilson, Walker and
Co., founded in 1825. This was the first firm in the provinces
to make fancy coloured leathers. After a generation in business,
the partners acquired a site covering two and a half acres at
the Sheepscar end of the Meanwood valley. There in 1857
they built a new tannery — one block was seven storeys high
— with a steam-engine, splitting machine and so on. Each
week ‘‘The Sheepscar Spanish Leather Works’’ as it was
called produced twenty thousand sheep, goat and calf skins
suitable for furniture, hat-linings and textile rollers. Then in
1893, H. Walker and J. H. Wilson reorganised the firm as
a joint-stock company with £400,000 capital. Ten years later
it foundered. C. F. Stead who came to Leeds as a boy from
Bromley (Kent) and set up as a book-binder in Ventnor Street
acquired the plant for £79,192 and in place of calf kid he
successfully produced chrome, glacé and chamois leathers.

Several other large manufacturers merit brief notice. Samuel
Smith set up as a tanner and currier in 1842 specialising in
calf and East India kips. After fifteen years he acquired a
five-acre site in Meanwood and in 1858 had three tanyards
there. Thirty years later when his two sons took over the
business, Meanwood Tanneries consisted of three hundred pits
capable of holding seventy thousand hides. Edward Kitchen,

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY I45

the proprietor of Cliff Tannery, Meanwood, began as a currier
and leather factor in 1840. He commenced tanning in 1854
in Harper Street. Eight years later he bought ten acres of land
in Meanwood, built sixty-three cottages for his workmen and
processed both English hides and imported kips. When he re-
tired in 1882, his two sons Edward and Matthew took over the
business, and at his death in 1894, they dissolved the partner-
ship, the former setting up as a leather factor, the latter taking
the tannery. Another large firm was founded by William Jack-
son, a journeyman tanner from Otley who migrated to Leeds
in the late 1840s when he was over thirty and started on his
own at Buslingthorpe.’* Success did not come during his life-
time. Just before his death in 1858 Jackson produced 400
hides a week but the firm stood on the verge of bankruptcy.
However, his creditors agreed to give his seventeen-year-old
son, W. L. Jackson (later to become Lord Allerton), a chance
to make good. A man of outstanding financial and inventive
abilities, W. L. Jackson built up “‘the largest tannery in the
United Kingdom’’ in the following generation. The plant
covered nine acres and provided employment for two hundred
hands. The Waterloo Tannery was founded by W. H. Conyers
in the 1820s. A generation later his two sons managed a busi-
ness which employed fifty workpeople and produced four
thousand skins a week. J. J. Flitch, who set up at the age of
thirty in Woodhouse Lane before moving to Buslingthorpe,
came from a family that had long been associated with the
trade. His grandfather migrated from Germany to Bermondsey
where he pioneered the manufacture of light leathers. His
father, who worked in a Newcastle tannery, moved to Leeds
in 1847. By the end of the century, the reputation of this
house for its fancy goods and high grade leather stood very
high,

Although other firms might be mentioned, these instances
indicate the principal large scale tanners in the borough. Most
gained their maximum size in a single generation and many
imposing tanyards were constructed in the late 1850s and
during the 1860s. All utilised whatever machines became
available. All operated on a scale larger than mere technical
considerations dictated, and included currying amongst their

™ The sketch in Industries of Yorkshire (1887), Part I, 121, is misleading.
William Jackson was born in 1815 and worked in Otley until the late 1840s.
His eldest son, W. L. Jackson, was born in Otley in 1840. See Leeds Intelligencer,
18 December, 1858; Yorkshire Post, 5 April, 1917.

146 MISCELLANY

processes. Nearly all encountered difficulties when the first
generation handed over to its successors. Of course, only the
study of firm records will show why these particular firms,
not others, grew so large. Perhaps they did not suffer from
reverses, or surmounted such setbacks as fires, bad debts and
price fluctuations. Perhaps their rapid growth depended on
useful connexions. Perhaps the entrepreneurs concerned dis-
played exceptional acumen in the strategy and timing of such
things as buying sites or stock. In other words, the decision
makers in these firms had more ability than others in the trade.
Which, if any, of these explanations apply will only be deter-
mined by examining each case individually.

VI

The last quarter of the nineteenth century, embracing the
so-called years of the ‘‘Great Depression’’, saw a considerable
expansion of shoemaking in Britain. The real income of the
masses almost doubled in a generation, and foremost amongst
the items they wanted were clothes, footwear and furniture.
Between 1900 and 1905, shoe consumption in the United
Kingdom averaged 924 million pairs a year. This works out
at 2.42 pairs per head, compared with 2.78 pairs in 1935 and
2.56 in 1956. Despite the absence of reliable measures, it
seems highly probable that the major advance in footwear
consumption occurred during the last two decades of the nine-
teenth century. By present day standards, of course, most
boots and shoes were poor in quality. But they were also cheap.
A pair of workingmen’s boots cost around &s. 6d., half the
price of fifty years earlier. As a result masses of people in this
country attained for the first time a reasonable standard of
footwear.’°

Boot and shoe production more than doubled in the last
quarter of the century without any corresponding increase in
the industry’s working force. In the 1870s the number of
shoemakers actually diminished; in the 1880s it rose 11%
and in the r890s 0.9%, reaching a quarter of a million workers
at the end of the century. Thus increased output was due

7 A R. Prest, Consumers’ Expenditure in the United Kingdom 1900-19 (1954),
131; The Economist (p. 59), 5 October, 1957; L.T.J., 7 June, 1892. McCulloch,
op. cit., 119, reckoned an average expenditure of ros. od. per head in 1836. Boots

then cost around 15s. od. a pair so that annual consumption ran at 0.67 pairs
per head.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 147

largely to a higher labour productivity. During this period
production methods changed continuously. Hand-operated
machines to sew, cut and rivet, based on Amercan inventions,
were introduced into Britain soon after the mid-century. In
the 1870s steam power began replacing human effort. Ten
years later new finishing machinery and standardised sizes
enabled American manufacturers to line-up complete produc-
tion sequences. One factory near Boston (U.S.A.) then made
as many boots as 32,000 Parisian craftsmen. Towards the
end of the century the “‘American Invasion’’ of Britain’s shoe
trade was in full swing. Patent-machinery made by United
States manufacturers was hired to British bootmakers. Supplies
of cheap heavy, hemlock-tanned sole leather and fashionable
ladies’ shoes came into the country on a disturbing scale. The
factory replaced the workshop as the new unit of production
and the trade concentrated more noticeably in certain areas —
Northampton, Stafford, and in the second rank, Leeds, Nor-
wich, Bristol and London.’®

Bootmaking was an important secondary industry in Leeds
for thirty years, 1870 to 1900. Dodgson, writing in 1878, felt
optimistic about the prospects of this trade in Leeds. The town
possessed cheap fuel, plenty of labour and leather and shoe-
machine makers (like Haleys, established in 1860).’’ Local
output ran around the two million mark and “‘there [was]
no reason why this number should not be increased. No town
is so well adapted for its development’’.”* At its peak in the
1890s the Leeds trade consisted of 80 manufacturers and 400
shoemakers, employing over 7,500 workpeople and producing
between four and five million pairs of boots and shoes each
year.

In a generation of growth covering the transition from one
dominant mode of manufacture to another, there was scope
both for the survival of old firms and the proliferation of new
ones. To be sure, bespoke craft shoemakers almost vanished.
Only a few could survive. E. Barrows & Son, established in
1846, had twenty workmen executing made-to-measure orders

76 General accounts (none of which is satisfactory) of this transformation will
be found in E. Bardoli, Footwear down the Ages (1933); I. Brooke, A History of
English Footwear [n.d.];J. W. Waterer, Leather in Life, Art and Industry, 1946.
See also J. H. Clapham, Free Trade and Steel, 93-96, and Machines and National
Rivalries (1938), 23, 181-3.

™ J. Dodgson, Historical Guide to Leeds (1879), 40.

™® Tbid. For output statistics, see footnote 19.

148 MISCELLANY

in a workshop above their retail premises and stocked ‘‘heavy
lines in French makes’’. They catered for middle-class cus-
tomers of all sexes and ages. ““The clientage embraces most
of the leading families of the borough and surrounding
district’’.’° A few such firms could expect a steady trade though
not much prospect of expansion. The majority of firms in the
district, however, manufactured cheap ready-mades for sale
through distributors or through their own retail outlets.. If
not before, the shift towards mechanised factory production
began in the 1870s with the introduction of riveted boot-
making in Bramley. Under the same roof, men cut, trimmed
and finished, girls operated sewing machines and boys riveting
machines. Twenty years later, half the labour in the local
trade worked in factories where they used imported American
sole leather and made workingmen’s boots for sale in Britain
and Ireland.

During this period, especially in the 1880s, shoemaking
abounded with opportunities, and newcomers found entry
easy. Mechanisation in the nineteenth century never reached
proportions which debarred small manufacturers from finding
a place in the trade. Amalgamations, the development of retail
outlets and other forms of integration, though not uncommon,
affected only a minority of firms before 1900. Of course, the
odds against entrants surviving or coming to the fore were
high. Nonetheless many chanced their luck. In 1890 £600
bought a half-share in a boot and shoe factory.*® Few began
in such grand style, however. R. T. Bramhill started in 1909
“‘with £10 raised by pledging a piano, and since that date
he had lock-up shops in various parts of Leeds’’.** Not surpris-
ingly he lasted only two years. Two brothers, J. and J. H.
Stewart who commenced with a loan of £250 in 1880 survived
for twelve years. They kept no books, sold ‘“‘on tick’’ and
ended with unsecured liabilities amounting to £1,857.°* Many,
perhaps the majority of newcomers, were stupid or simply
knavish like these men. Each year more came like insects on
a hot summer’s day. Few lasted long. William Jackson who
started with £50 in 1877 had more success and longevity than
most. Within two years, he had plant worth £4,000, a turn-

7? Industries of Yorkshire (1887), Part I, 161; see also p. 99.
LEAR. 7 january, 1860.

STAT UR, 2t June; LOI,

? Lt Rk. 9 August, 1892.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 149

over of £50,000 and profits of between six and seven thousand
pounds. Yet in 1891 Jackson too was bankrupt. His assets
amounted to only £4,053, half in the form of machinery.**
A period of rapid change also presented longstanding firms
with pitfalls and opportunities galore. The majority of these
only managed to operate on a small scale. Robinson and
Mortimer, established with a capital of £40 in 1849 had assets
worth £2,340 in 1894. Then six successive years of loss piled
up irretrievable debts totalling £2,500. When the partners
failed in 1901, their machinery was worth £1,000.°* Another
old firm, D. Adleston, which failed in 1904 after three adverse
years of trade, had a capital of £13,000 and machinery worth
£300.°° This selection from many such examples shows men
setting up as shoe manufacturers with resources varying from
£10 to £250. The majority of firms, both old and new, man-
aged precariously with small amounts of capital. By the end
of the century a medium-sized manufacturer would have be-
tween five and ten thousand pounds capital. Large producers,
of course, had virtually any amount. Phillips & Co. in 1914
had almost £14,000; John Halliday of Bramley had £50,000

in 1906; Salters of Pudsey had £120,000 in 1900; and Stead
-and Simpson, a limited company, had a quarter of a million.*®

This diversity, reflecting differences in capital resources, is
also noticeable in labour and size of plant.*’ The entrepreneur-
craftsman employed up to a score of workmen. Medium-sized

manufacturers had fifty to a hundred. John and Joseph Ellis

| 1914.

'of Bramley employed sixty people in Railsford Factory.
Walker Brothers of Lady Bridge (established 1885) had
-seventy hands making women’s shoes. Russell at Oatland

Mills in Meanwood, who concentrated on markets in the
southern part of England and Ireland, employed 120. E.

Broadbent of Armley (established 1848) employed a hundred
-workpeople and made 100,000 pairs of heavy boots in 1888.
The size of large firms varied enormously, depending on the
‘scope of their operations. Salter and Salter, for instance, were
leather makers who ventured into boot-making and acquired

et kh, Apml, 1é901, 8 September, 1891, 10 May, 1697.

eta d dew, D2. une, Foor.

Lt mk. 1 May, rood.

‘1 Ry 11 December, 1900; ro January, 1906, 2% January, 1914, 21 October,

‘This paragraph is based on L.7.R., 12 October, 1897; E. T. Carr, op. cit.,

ye-2, Industries of Yorkshive (1887), Part 1, 61, 74, 111, 137, 166, 177.

I50 MISCELLANY

a chain of sixty-four shops in the Midlands and North. John
Halliday, a Leeds shoemaker who moved to Bramley in 1872
and employed thirty outworkers, built a large factory on a
two-acre site in the early 1880s. His operations were confined
to currying imported leather and making Blacksmith brand
boots. In 1888 five hundred and fifty people worked in this
plant making seven thousand pairs of boots each week.
Another Leeds firm was Blakeys. Founded by E. Blakey in
1857 in Lady Lane, this business comprised five workshops
in central Leeds by 1888, one in Virginia Street being six
storeys high. Besides making boots they produced protectors
and handled their own printing. The founder’s son, John
Blakey (1841-1901), was a rare individual in the trade, a man
with inventive ability. Among his many patents was a machine
to cut sole leather which not only economised leather by 25%
but attained a rate of twenty soles a minute. Towards the end
of the century this business was transformed into a limited
company with a capital of £120,000. It then had factories in
Leeds, Guiseley and London and twenty retail shops.

Along with the sproutings of factory production went the
decline of cottage manufacture.** The domestic system which
involved a craftsman in forty different hand operations had
long been a thing of the past. The subdivision of each process
and the use of hand-operated machines had undermined the
position of the cottage craftsmen by the last quarter of the
century. But outworkers still had a role as finishers. In addi-.-
tion they formed a reserve cushion of resources in years of
extraordinary demand, for instance during the Boer War. But
the numbers and the importance of home workers shrank after
1g00. Labour unions in Leeds favoured factory production
because the Factory Acts could then be applied to shoemaking.
This would secure male workers a measure of protection against
cheap child labour. Furthermore, the adoption of machinery
in factories enabled labour leaders to standardise work loads
and campaign against piece-payment. Their success in attain-
ing these objects was imperilled in the 1890s by the existence
of a large number of outworkers. And after 1900 union leaders
had to contend with an influx of females into factories which
upset the previous parity between the sexes so that by 1914

** See, for example, L.7.R., 13 January, 1891, 12 March, 1805, 14 November,

1899, 12 June, 1900, 13 February, 1901; H. Yorke, Leeds Past and Present (1907),
84-5.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY I51

women outnumbered men by three to one. By the First World
War, however, fewer people in Leeds were concerned about
the outcome of these issues. The old self-contained domestic
system had gone and surviving outworkers were attached to
factories. But the number of factories and operatives, in fact
the Leeds boot industry, was shrinking appreciably. Shoe-
making, like tanning, had started to decline in the city.

Vil

The volume of leather brought into the United Kingdom
increased considerably in the last quarter of the nineteenth
century. Between 1873 and 1879 rising imports of tanned kips
adversely affected London’s tanners and those in Leeds ex-
pressed ‘‘grave anxiety’’. ““‘Even now’’ — wrote Dodgson in
the Leeds Guide for 1879 — ‘‘there are not wanting those who
say the glory is departing’’. In large part, however, the
perennial laments printed in trade journals and uttered at
associations’ dinners simply reflect the day-to-day reactions of
myopic businessmen with a shallow view of change. Few
leaders in family firms saw beyond the end of their noses.
The leather trade in Leeds continued to grow — though per-
haps not so rapidly as before. In the 1880s, tanning, and, a
decade later, shoemaking, experienced a ‘“‘dull unevenness’’
of trade.*® But only after the end of the century did the local
industry begin to contract.

At its peak in the 1890s the Leeds leather industry con-
sisted of a score of tanneries, four score boot manufacturers
-and over four hundred boot and shoe makers. Two generations
later, in the mid-twentieth century, just over three thousand
worked in the local industry. The number of tanners and
curriers had shrunk to a quarter. Seven large tanneries sur-
_vived but few as family firms. The number of boot and shoe
-manufacturers dwindled to a fifth. The leather fairs held in
the town had ended. To be sure many of the remaining firms
operated on a scale and with an efficiency far beyond their
performance in the nineteenth century. Yet in terms of inputs
iand the most favourable estimates of outputs, the Leeds
‘industry had contracted. Leeds had forfeited its standing as
ja leading centre of the nation’s leather trade.

is L.7.R., 6 October, 1891; see also 7 October, 1890, 10 May, 1892; J. Dodgson,
| Historical Guide to Leeds (1879), 39-40; Schlote, op. cit., 142.

152 MISCELLANY

Some of the reasons for the decline of the industry in Leeds
are to be found in the difficulties that have beset the entire
British leather trade in the last fifty years. In the changing
economy of the twentieth century, tanning and shoemaking
have not been amongst the rapidly growing industries.*’ The
number of firms and the labour force in Britain did not in-
crease after World War I. On the other hand they did not
decline significantly. In this context it follows that contraction
at Leeds and elsewhere has been offset by expansion in other
districts. To explain what happened in Leeds, therefore, it is
necessary to consider not only the factors which retarded
growth in the trade as a whole but also developments which
redounded simply to the disadvantage of the local industry.

British tanners generally bemoaned their fate in the early
twentieth century. Along with small firms, large old reputable
tanneries went to the wall or scraped bitterly by with low
margins. [hey attributed their plight to foreigners who began
tanning more of their own hides, erected tariff barriers and
entered into competition with British leathers. Looking back,
in 1909, C. A. Towler considered that “‘there was a long spell of
good trade before we felt the effects of foreign competition’’.°**
Then in the last quarter of the nineteenth century the storm
broke. Overseas countries met their own needs and debarred
British imports. A series of articles in the Leather Trades
Review of 1896 surveying the growth of tanning abroad must:
have perturbed many British readers.°* Furthermore, the
United States, Germany, the East Indies and other countries
exported leather surplus to their domestic requirements as well
as leather goods to free-trade Britain. The result was that
prominent members of the trade, especially tanners, strongly

°° Whereas “underdeveloped” economies formerly exported their ‘‘surplus’’ hides
and skins to “‘advanced’’ economies for processing and consumption, they have
increasingly undertaken the initial stages of manufacture themselves, in order
to promote industrialisation : hence the predicament of tanners in Great Britain,
the U.S.A. and other ‘‘advanced economies’’. See Watson, op. cit., 16-18; W. S.
and E. S. Woytinski, World Population and Production (1953), 678-81. On the
market side, not only was there a fall in the proportion of leather goods exported
in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, but the home market reached
saturation point. During the nineteenth century the per capita consumption of
leather in Great Britain rose to reach 7.0 lbs. in 1881. By 1951, consumption had
fallen by a quarter. Saddlery was no longer wanted; leather bags weighing 50
Ibs. had been replaced by equally capacious light cases a tenth of the weight
(see Brooke, op. cit., 89 ff.); and plastic materials formed a substitute for many
purposes.

°T.7T.R., 10 November, 1909.

Lk, ta January, 1896, 11. February, 1896.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSIRY, IQTH CENTURY ES3

objected to ‘‘dumping’’ and favoured ‘‘fair-trade’’ proposals.°*°

With one exception Leeds tanners concentrated on the manu-
facture of light and medium leathers. Accordingly imports of
heavy American hemlock-tanned leather did not make serious
inroads upon their trade. On the contrary, it might even have
been to their advantage in so far as cheaper soles reduced
footwear prices and expanded sales. So long as the consump-
tion of footwear and fancy goods remained buoyant — which
it did — the market for the kinds of leather so far produced
in Leeds continued to grow. Of more consequence were imports
of light leathers. Leeds manufacturers undoubtedly had advan-
tages over Indian tanners in preparing superior qualities of
leather. But they had no such edge over German and American
producers. In any event, because cheap imported low-quality
tanned-kips were suitable substitutes for some purposes,
British tanners lost ground even in the home market to Indian
leathers. No sooner had British exports of light leather to
Continental Europe dwindled owing to hostile tariff policies,
than foreign exports invaded the home market precisely when
its rate of growth dropped off. Yet declining light leather ex-
ports since the 1870s had already underlined the need to expand
home sales if the industry was not to suffer from excess-
capacity.°* Despite the general buoyancy of the home market
in the late nineteenth century this perilous situation daunted
Leeds producers and gave rise to much pessimism during the
1880s and 1890s. To expand home sales, Leeds manufacturers
had to contend not only with cheap leather imports but also
with producers in Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, Dublin, London
and other centres, who were caught in the same predicament.
The 1890s was thus a period of acute rivalry.°’ Rising produc-
tion costs intensified the struggle. The growing world demand
for hides exerted an upward pressure on prices. Tannin prices
also rose.’® To bait customers, manufacturers indulged in all
kinds of subterfuge including long-term credits. Intense
competition undoubtedly lowered business morality, and Leeds

°° See, for example. W. L. Jackson’s speech at the opening of the Leather
Trades Exhibition in London, the Times, 27 September, 1881. Also see L.T.R.,
Io February, 1891, 10 November, 1909.

Honmann, op. cit., 86.

PoL.2.h., 6 October 101, 8 December, 1801, 12 April, 1802, ro May, 1892,
9 January, 1900, 13 February, 1901, 10 November, 1909; W. T. i aon and G.
_ Crowther, A Study of Prices (1938), 88; Hoffmann, op. cit., Table 5

°° Handbook to the British Association Meeting at Leeds in coe (ed... -G;
Miall), 123.

I54 MISCELLANY

had its share of ‘‘rascally failures’’.°*’ In order to offset rising
costs, tanners naturally tried to improve productivity. The
average size of plant rose so that the increasing range of
available machinery could be utilised. A new process, ‘‘chrome
tanning’’, spread so rapidly that it dominated the trade on
the eve of World War I. Indicating current concern, though
really a promise of things to come, the Leather Trades Review
carried a series in IgII entitled ‘‘Systematic Methods of
Controlling a Leather Business’’, by ‘‘Economist’’.*®
Casualties in this contest were not restricted to particular
localities. Numerically the largest group to be liquidated con-
sisted of small manufacturers in small towns.°’ But no major
centre escaped scot-free. Among the latter Leeds did not
feature conspicuously. Old-fashioned and inept producers
everywhere suffered the same penalty. In many places, how-
ever, losses were made good by reorganisations or by new-
comers. In Leeds net additions did not offset losses, and the
number of firms dwindled.*’°
Put to the test, the local industry failed to be competitive.

In 1897 the Leather Trades Review declared that “‘A more
difficult problem to solve than the future of the Leeds leather
trade would be hard to find’’.*°* Six years earlier, a local
currier complaining about the state of trade declared ‘‘At my
prices I get no profit, so where should I be at theirs?’’*°? In
1892 a correspondent covering the quarterly leather fair in
Leeds reported:

Perhaps twenty tanners put in an appearance in the renovated,

old tumble-down leather market of Leeds, and these few repre-

sentatives of a dying or neglected trade were almost unapproach-

able . . . their products are not wanted, or only wanted at a price
that leaves out even a bank interest profit.19

By comparison with other centres the Leeds industry seemed
unprofitable and moribund. And since the proportion of small
tanners in the borough had diminished, these strictures pre-
sumably refer to medium and large firms. Models of modernity
in the 1860s, these tanneries were outmoded in the r8gos.

“Ed w.,.6 Janiary, 1900.

LT me. 15 Bebruary, oir.

°° See the section on bankruptcies in the Leather Trades Review.

10° A comparison between Kelly’s Leeds Directories for 1903 and 1911 shows
that six tanners disappeared and two new ones were established.

Hl LE dts 12 OCtowenr, 1807.

wee. at his competitors prices. 1.7 ., 6° June, Ter.

18 7.7 .R., 13 December, 1892.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 155

Producers elsewhere forged ahead. Perhaps Leeds tanners no
longer enjoyed any locational advantages. Perhaps their sales
policies were unenterprising.*°* Perhaps their employees ob-
structed innovation. Such possibilities will be resolved only
by studies comparing Leeds with other tanning centres and by
case-histories of individual firms. At present it is not possible
to do more than indicate shortcomings of a general nature on
the production side.

For the industry to fall behind in its methods implies that
large firms in Leeds failed to keep abreast of current develop-
ments to the same extent as manufacturers elsewhere, In this
connection it is necessary to distinguish between progress
abroad and at home. Compared with the growing American
and German leather industries, English tanners in general
clung to old, expensive methods.*°’ Sole leather, for example,
was still tanned by oak-bark, a twelve-month process. Many
British tanners carried stocks of bark sufficient to last from
two to three years and valued at £500 to £5,000. Owing to
inadequate storing, poor grinding and leaching, this material
was wastefully used. No English tanner produced 34 lbs. of
leather with r lb. of bark. Similar imputations were made
‘about stocks and the use of lime. By contrast, American sole-
leather tanneries used hemlock bark containing about 55%
active tannin. And in the post Civil War generation when the
ranching frontier moved across the western plains and the head
of cattle doubled, tanning was transformed from a ‘‘handi-
craft’ to a “mass production’’ industry by the ‘“‘perfection
of new tanning machinery and the further application of
power’’.*°®® The number of tanneries in America declined whilst
their size increased enormously. Protected against foreign
competition by steep tariffs, leather producers, like other manu-
‘facturers in the States, formed trusts. The American Leather.
Trust launched in 1895 had assets of £34 million.*’’ British
‘producers tried, somewhat pathetically, to convince themselves

am W. 1... Jackson, M.P., a Leeds tanner, declared: ‘It was very much the
fashion in this trade for the English manufacturer to make an article and then
to seek a customer. It was to be wished it could be otherwise, and that the
wants of the customer could be first ascertained’’. (The Times, 27 September,
1881.)

—"L.7.R., 14 January, 1896, 13 December, 1892.

- Watson, OP: Cit., 9, 11-12.

- 7.1 ., to Marcha, 1806. See also Watson, op. cit., 12; “‘This Corporation
represents approximately 60 per cent of the total sole leather tanned at that
time .. . and was at the time the largest Corporation in the country’’.

156 MISCELLANY

that non-integrated production in smaller units enhanced
managerial efficiency and production flexibility to such an
extent that they need not fear these powerful giants. They
were, of course, right — provided that they did not have to
compete, When the “‘American Invasion’’ came they fell like
ninepins. Backward methods and therefore too small a scale
of operations, not tariffs, priced British leather out of its home
market and ‘“‘neutral’’ markets overseas.*°* ‘‘Cheap leather
is what is wanted and this the British tanner refuses to manu-
facture . . . So long as tanners will stick to old methods —
not to say fads — so long will there be a limited demand for
their goods.’’*°® They might consider themselves fortunate to
make 2% on turnover. Such criticisms as these applied equally
to British curriers; in 1902 Northampton curriers were still
using cod-oil and tallow.**®

Grant the validity of this international contrast, why did
tanners in Leeds trail behind those elsewhere in Britain? The
outlook for tanning darkened in Leeds during the 1890s when
dull trade sapped the resources of the industry. After the close
of the century, the number of units in the industry shrank.
The difficulties confronting the local trade arose partly because
so many Leeds producers made light leathers. They catered
principally for a fashion trade, which required variety and
novelty if necessary even at the expense of quality. Although
many factories operated on a large scale in order to supply
several sources of demand, their ideas of what was wanted
possibly became too fixed. They believed, for instance, that
for women nothing rivalled the elegance of black shoes which
could be worn with dresses of any colour. A generation of
unchallenged supremacy bred superior attitudes that were
dangerously inflexible, even fatal to successful selling.

This conservatism seems more apparent and far more conse-
quential in the local reluctance to introduce chrome-tanning,
the most important development in the trade at the end of
the nineteenth century. It was only to be expected that leather
initially made by this process, following the patents of
Augustus Schultz in 1884, suffered from defects. But chrome-
tanning offered persevering entrepreneurs a quick method of

108 7 e. markets in third countries to which British tanners and their foreign
rivals had equal terms of access.

19 T..T.R., 13 December, 1892.

1° T,.7T.R., 10 December, 1902. As a result, shoe manufacturers allegedly pre-
ferred American leather.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 157

making hard-wearing sole-leather and uppers capable of
taking a much wider range of colours.** The operation took
one to three days compared with two to three months with
vegetable tannage.*’* Leather was first made by this process
on a commercial scale in the U.S.A. in 1887. By 1goo three-
quarters of America’s ‘‘upper’’ leather was chrome-tanned.*’®
When Henry Procter circumvented the American patents this
method became available to British manufacturers. In r916
nine-tenths of the boot and shoe uppers in this country were
chrome-tanned leathers.*** But the Leeds tanners, who were
principally concerned with supplying leather for uppers,
adopted the new process slowly. The first local attempt in the
late 1880s did not prove successful.**? No doubt this served
as a warning to others, because most British tanners were
reluctant to introduce chrome-tanning. In 1902 the Leather
Trades Review reported that ““Ten years ago the overwhelm-
ing majority of our tanners pooh-poohed the idea that chrome-
tanned leather had come to stay, and seemed to think that
anyone who ventured on this business were cranks’’.**® Yet
none were so adamant in their reluctance and none so ready to
forego this opportunity as the large firms in Leeds. Before
1900 only one tanner — Meiers of Beeston, a business started
by two brothers (one of whom had served his apprenticeship
with J. J. Flitch and Sons) — produced chrome-tanned box-
calf leather.**’ Shortly after r900 J. J. Flitch made willow-
calf patterns and coloured chrome-tanned leather.*** In 1905
Stead followed suit, and, a few years later, William Paul at
the Oak Tannery.**’ In these cases the innovation was made
either by a newcomer to the trade or by one of the younger
generation that had just inherited control or by a man keenly
interested in American developments, As a result these firms

711 Chrome leather had to be waterproofed by waxing. For the chrome process,
see H. R. Procter, The Principles of Leather Manufacture (1922), 256 ff.; K. J.
Adcock, Leather (1916), 3 ff.; J. W. Waterer, Leather and Craftsmanship (1950),

42 This enabled a tanner to reduce considerably his investment in stocks for
a given rate of production. He thus not only lowered production costs, but
lessened the effect of unstable raw material prices. Since raw materials constituted
four-fifths of costs, this was important.

> Watson, Op. cit., ©.

= Adcock, Op... cit., 3.

5 Handbook of the British Association Meeting at Leeds in 1890 (ed. L. C.
Miall), 125; Handbook of the Chemical Society Meeting at Leeds in 1925, III.

16 T .T.R., 10 December, 1902.

So 7. R., ty Marchy tort.

POET ie, 1G October, ‘1901;

“9 Information from Mr P. Stead and Mr N. Paul.

158 MISCELLANY

made grained or coloured, light, supple, water-resistant
leathers, and flourished. But the majority held aloof.**®

Explaining the backwardness of the local trade early in
1902, the manager of one Leeds tannery declared:

I have heard it said the reason why the Germans are making such
rapid headway with the box-calf business is because chrome leather
manufacture is more suited to a nation of chemists than to our-
selves.121

This reflected a common opinion in several fields of industrial
activity. But it is not in itself sufficient explanation. Leeds
tanners helped to establish and had easy access to the Leather
Department of the Yorkshire College, the only institution of
its kind in the country. Considering the scientific advances
made by the staff and the many services which they rendered,
it seems unlikely that lack of expertise hindered the introduc-
tion of chrome tanning.*** In view of the size of many tanneries
and the estates bequeathed by their owners, it is difficult to
believe that the local industry was handicapped by any short-
age of capital.'?* The core of the matter was that the ageing
gentlemen who owned old, reputable tanneries were not
specially interested in new methods. They were emotionally
committed to methods which had earlier made them success-
ful.*?* Dissatisfaction caused by poor trade in the 1890s pro-
duced only negative results: pleas for political protection or
fractured partnership arrangements. Five large tanneries
underwent a change in leadership probably owing to
managerial discontent. The only positive response was a
general effort to improve on existing methods in the hope of
making marginal gains. None of the older generation would
countenance new methods. Early in the twentieth century,
their time ran out. First medium-sized tanners failed: W.
Hepworth in r900, J. Dixon and W. Walker of the Aire
Tannery in 1901. Then in 1903 the large firm of Wilson and

2° See, for example, L.7J.R., 10 April, 1907.

re de, eS. WAUATY:,. LOO.

%2 The extent of their contribution is clearly reflected in the Leather Trades
Review from 1890 onwards. See also W. Beckworth, ‘‘History of the Leather
Industries Department — University of Leeds, 1890-1907’’, in the Manchester,
Liverpool and District Tanners’ Federation Year Book for 1907, 81-94.

ie For instance, see the. wills of F.C. Kitchen and J... Plitch in 1.7282
17 Jjaly, ro1z, 19 August, ror.

1224 The tannery directors whom I interviewed all agreed that more than any
other single factor the conservatism of the older generation impeded technical
progress in the local industry around t1g00,

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 159

Walker failed. Before World War I, Beckworth, Flitch, Jack-
son and Kitchen no longer tanned leather in Leeds. Manage-
ment of a family firm in these instances might be compared
to travelling along a well-known route. The entrepreneur,
committed to a particular course, soon passes the point of no
return in his own lifetime. Faced with adversity he sees how
far he has already gone and simply tries to increase the per-
formance of an engine that has long been running at the
maximum for its design. The pioneers appear to be those who
started out afresh, perhaps using the same labour and equip-
ment, but always trying to reach the same destination by a
different route.

Yet even those enterprising tanners, who in the short run
increased their profits and in the long run ensured the survival
of their firms, could not be certain of their ultimate independ-
ence. From the 1890s amalgamations and private companies
were formed to increase the scale of operations and to combine
the production of light and heavy leather together with
ancillary processes in a single organisation. Several local firms
such as Beckworth, Wilson and Walker, Stead and Simpson,
became limited companies in which the family retained control.
This development, however, pointed to the extinction of family
enterprise. Within fifty years the surviving tanners in Leeds
(with two exceptions) belonged to integrated groups. Members
of the founding-family still might participate in managing a
plant, but its scale and operations would be decided within
the context of a whole group. Apart from one case, initiative
to form such amalgamations did not originate amongst Leeds
tanners. As family firms or as limited companies, local manu-
facturers integrated no further functions than tanning, curry-

ing and factoring. Furthermore, family firms were apt to
_ break up into these sections when they grew large. And some
| functions, for instance that of leather factoring, became
| obsolete. Consequently the link between past and present
comprises little more than the name of a firm and its former
| premises. Management, methods and products have all changed
' considerably in the last fifty years.*”°

| Whatever the extent of this transformation one cannot gain-

*° See Hoffmann, op. cit., 200 ff. The recovery of the industry in the inter-
war period was based on the curtailment of leather imports and an increase in
raw hide imports. Protection played a part in this. Did these trends retard the
| progress of tanning in, say, India?

160 MISCELLANY

say the contraction of leather-making in Leeds.'*® This was
symbolised by the termination of the town’s leather fairs. The
events leading to the discontinuation of the “‘intermediate’’
fairs reflect a substantial shift in the fortunes of the local
industry. The fairs came under attack first in the mid-18g0s,
when Bristol was declared to have ‘‘greater attractions’ for
dealers.‘?” Complaints abounded about the filthy conditions
of the Leeds market. Then in 1902 Manchester traders decided
to hold their own quarterly leather fair, chiefly for sole leather,
and suggested the abandonment of the ‘‘minor’’ fairs in
Leeds.*** The proposal provoked an uproar in Leeds and
throughout the trade. The Leather Trades Review reacted
sharply in defence of existing arrangements. ‘‘Leeds is without
doubt a much larger centre of the leather industry than Man-
chester, or, in fact, all Lancashire, and is perhaps the largest
distributing centre for leather in the kingdom’’.**? Tanners
who bought hides in Manchester would still have to sell their
leather in Leeds. Within a few months, however, this journal
changed its tune. It found that 14 million hides were sold each
year in Lancashire for sole leather.**® Therefore it advocated
the opening of the Manchester Fair, which materialised a few
years later. In response the rendezvous of the Leeds Fair moved
to the Corn Exchange in Vicar Lane.*** But to no avail.
Attendances dwindled. The minor fairs ceased before World
War I. After almost a century of trade the pre-eminence of
Leeds as a leather market declined.**”

Concurrently the local boot and shoe trade contracted. In
the 1880s the rapid expansion of this trade ‘‘was not general
throughout the country, but took place mainly in the centres

6 What is disturbing is not the contraction of the industry in Leeds or else-
where in Britain but the way in which it occurred, involving lack of enterprise
on the part of many connected with the trade. Since the per capita demand for
leather goods shrank faster than population increase in the twentieth century,
contraction was inevitable. If it happened quickly so that resources shifted into
other uses this was beneficial. Foreigners who supplanted British manufacturers
by invading the British market later lost out. Nevertheless, for one British
industry this was a process of adjustment by default.

27 T T.R., 10 September, 1895; see also 13 February, 1900. Complaints about
“inadequate accommodation’’ at the South Market began in the 1870s, if not
earlier: see Leeds Intelligencer, 10 June, 1871; Jackson’s New Illustvated Guide
to Leeds (1889), 208-9.

We .2.; 11 December, Toor, 13 May, 1903.

we L. Ak. & Janvary, 1902.

LT Re r2 March, 1002.

We LPR, 23 Aueust, 1902.

182 The major fairs held at the Corn Exchange were discontinued during World
War II. See Kelly’s Leeds Directories for 1940, 1464; and 1947, 1405.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 161

for machine-made goods, viz., Northamptonshire, Leicester-
shire, Norwich and Leeds’’.*** Measured by its labour force,
Leeds soon fell behind these centres.

Percentage change in the number of boot and shoemakers
1881-1891 1891-1901 IQOI-IQII

Leeds ; 30.0 -1.5 —21.6
Leicester : 82.6 15.5 -4.3
Northamptonshire ‘ 48.4 16.2 0.7
Norwich ‘ 25.9 19.0 O.7

Source: Census of England and Wales, 1911, X, cx.

In view of these figures it is not surprising that in the r8gos
local manufacturers expressed misgivings about their future
until war orders livened trade at the end of the decade. With
monotonous repetition they complained about rising leather
prices, rising wages, and imported footwear from North
America and the Continent. (One might almost guess that
French and Austrian boots were not made from leather but
from “‘shavings and paper’’ and copied from ‘‘our fashions’’
to the last detail.)*** The fact was that in competition with shoe
manufacturers at home and abroad, Leeds makers suffered
from two fatal defects: they did not produce what most cus-
tomers wanted; and they operated on too small a scale.
Leicester specialised in women’s shoes, Northants in high-
class men’s footwear, and Leeds in cheap, heavily-nailed and
waxed boots for working men. After the 1870s Leeds manu-
facturers used American-style machinery and imported leather
on an increasing scale. For the next twenty years bootmaking
was a flourishing trade. William Jackson who started in 1877
with £50 had a turnover of £50,000 two years later.**° In the
1890s the borough’s output reached five million pairs a year.
Then tariff barriers abroad began to obstruct a marginal trade
in exports. More important, a fundamental shift in demand
occurred in the home market. The appearance of American
footwear inaugurated a revolution in taste.**® Working men

3 Census of England and Wales, 1911, X: Occupations and Industries, Part
i. crs.
84 T.T.R., 8 September, 1896. See also Leeds Civic Week Handbook, ed. W.
Boyle (1928), 74-7, where the decline of boot and shoe making in Leeds is ascribed
to foreign tariffs reducing British exports and to imports from Ireland, Continental
Europe and North America capturing the home market.

; La. 7 April, 1S01,.-8 September, 1891, ro May, 1892.

#86 T. Brooke, A History of English Footwear [n.d.], 99; J. Waterer, Leather
in Life, Art and Industry (1946), 184 ff.; H. Yorke, Leeds Past and Present (1907),
83-5.

162 MISCELLANY

no longer wanted heavily-greased boots. Instead they preferred
footwear, especially shoes, made out of lighter, coloured
leathers. Fitting shoes a la mode together with factory-made
clothes emancipated manual workers from the lowly status
visibly embodied in their heavy, ungainly boots and unshapely
garments.

Leeds manufacturers were slow to perceive this change and
when they did it was too late. Many sank making ‘‘heavies’’
to the last. Earlier warnings about the advantages of diversifica-
tion fell on deaf ears in the prosperous 1870s and 1880s. One
firm, the Leather and Rubber Boot Company founded in 1886
by L. E. Scafe, a local leather factor, produced tennis shoes
and also tried making waterproof boots by attaching leather
uppers to a sole containing one layer of rubber. Besides keep-
ing the wearer’s feet ‘‘perfectly dry under the most adverse
circumstances’’, these boots had the supposed merit of making
“his progress as silent as a cat’’. Leeds Watch Committee
replaced ‘‘the clumsy, convict-labour-suggesting feet gear’’
worn by the borough police with these boots “‘which will give
no warning to evil doers’’.*** Chrome-tanned leather provided
a superior product and this firm vanished. The production
of ladies’ footwear represented a more important but equally
abortive attempt at diversification. In 1890 the Leather Trades
Review suggested that ‘‘if a better class of ladies’ boot were
introduced, such as are produced in the Midlands — and there

is no reason why it should not be done — Leeds and district
would soon become one of the largest centres in the king-
dom’’.*°® Six years later the Review reported somewhat

fancifully that Leeds manufacturers made a lot of women’s
and girls’ light shoes. This output came from two or three
firms.'°’? None rivalled producers in the Midlands. The town’s
tanners could not supply the coloured, chrome leathers used
in smart American footwear. In any case, many Leeds shoe
manufacturers had an antiquated sense of style. Yet even these
modest beginnings were soon stifled when American-styled
footwear, especially for women, conquered the market.**°
The majority who failed in Leeds and elsewhere at this time

137 Industries of Yorkshire (1887), Part I, 98. See also p. 90. L. E. Scafe went
bankrupt in 1892, see L.7T.R., 9 August, 1892.

We Lal RS is May; 1800:

139 T T.R., 8 December, 1896. See Industries of Yorkshire (1887), Part I, 111.

149 7. W. Waterer, Leather in Life, Art and Industry (1946), 186-9.

LEEDS LEATHER INDUSTRY, IQTH CENTURY 163

were small shoemakers unable to compete with their larger
rivals. But a few failures had operated on a substantial scale
and it was their liquidation that reflected the inability of the
Leeds trade to move with the times. D. Adlestone had
a capital of £13,000 when his business collapsed in 1904 after
three bad years of trade. In 1906 Jackson and Bassford went
with £8,000 and John Halliday with £50,000.**' The trade-
marks of these firms shows that their reputation rested on
making stout boots. So their prosperity was in no way affected
by the fact that they did not use French kid and calf and
patent leathers in the 1890s. But after 1900 they neglected
soft, coloured chrome leathers at their peril.

The contraction of shoemaking in Leeds can be ascribed to
a further factor, the small scale of most operators. A firm
with sufficient output to justify producing multi-fitting shoes
with a full range of machinery stood a better chance of survival
than a small workshop with several treadle machines. In
tgoi S. T. Midgley & Son installed ‘‘a complete Goodyear
welting plant, the first of its kind in the district’’.'** If
financing such equipment was beyond the means of a family
entrepreneur, he could form a limited company. In 1897 John
Blakey created a company with a capital of £120,000. Three
years later Salter and Salter followed suit with £120,000
capital. Stead and Simpson (of Leeds and Leicester) had a
quarter million. Such firms developed retail outlets through
their own chain stores. Some even produced their own leather,
though without much success. Most found that shoemaking on
this scale offered a satisfactory return on outlay. In the five
years before World War I, Stead and Simpson’s profits aver-
aged £19,000 a year, or 6% on their nominal capital.*** Yet
few firms in Leeds operated on such a large scale. And most
small firms slid into insolvency. Consequently the size of the
average unit rose steeply, and in view of the extension of
mechanisation, a writer in 1914 could justifiably claim that the
local shoe trade had been ‘‘completely revolutionised during
the past six or seven years’’.'** Nonetheless shoemaking was
declining in Leeds. Rising labour productivity did not offset

alia tk? Une, 1001, ir May, 1904,.10 January, 1906.

“? L.T.R., 18 September, 1901. This firm took over the factory of John Halli-
day & Co. at Bramley in 1906 and remained there until 1913.

4° L.T.R., 12 October, 1897, 11 December, 1900, 18 January, 1911, 21 February,

7O12, 21. August ro12, 15 January, ro13, 21 January, rord4.
“4H. Yorke, Leeds Past and Present (1907), 84.

164 MISCELLANY

the fall in manpower. Not one of the ninety new shoe companies

formed in 1914 — to cite a year at random — was located in
Leeds.**°

VIll

The foregoing account is no more than a preliminary survey
of the leather industry’s progress in Leeds during the nine-
teenth century. Its purpose is to draw attention to certain
questions rather than to provide answers. Detailed studies are
required to show what happened in other centres and in the
firms themselves in order to confirm — or to correct — this.
general picture. These tasks ought to be undertaken. Hitherto
our knowledge of the nation’s industrial development has been
narrowly restricted to a few growing industries or to patholo-
gical cases. Many important industries which engaged large
numbers of workpeople and by catering for the home market
transformed the style of living of masses in this country have
not been thoroughly investigated. In the case of leather, this
should be undertaken whilst there is still reasonable hope that.
business records and men associated with the trade half a
century ago still survive amongst us.**°

i Based on the L.7 at. for ror.

6 And not only records of firms but also those of both operatives’ and masters”
associations. The Leeds Boot Manufacturers’ Association dates from the 1870s,.
if not earlier, as does the Tanners’ Association; workers in each branch of the
trade had local union branches by the 1880s. In addition, Richard Nickols of
Joppa Tannery, and Stead and Simpson, shoe manufacturers, both deserve study
on account of their pioneering réles in the industry.

ne

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN. LEEDS,
| 1770-1840

By W. G. RIMMER

BY PRESENT DAY standards, working class housing in the early
nineteenth century was deplorable. In 1774, three-fifths of the
dwellings in Leeds township, and in 1839, three-quarters, were
tiny, dark, ill-ventilated cottages without water, adequate
sanitation or gas light. Such low standard housing is one of
the characteristics of an underdeveloped economy. For the
majority of working men in this country money wages were
then close to the level needed for bare subsistence. And the
technological changes that later revolutionised building, drain-
age, water supply and urban transport had not been introduced.
Until incomes rose, until iron pipes and tramcars provided
plenty of water and cheap rapid transport, and until local
authorities controlled substantial forces of manpower and
capital, the houses of the masses inevitably bore witness to
their poverty and helplessness.
This paper is not concerned with the remarkable improve-
ments in housing that have taken place in the last hundred
years. It is concerned with the situation before that. Despite
the appalling standard of working men’s accommodation in
early Victorian England, some historians believe that between
the late eighteenth century and the 1840s housing conditions
-actually got worse.* The rapid increase in subsistence wage-
earners created an exceptional demand for cheap accommoda-
tion. Landlords had no alternative but ‘‘to build the largest

* “Worse” in a quantitative and/or a qualitative sense. See T. S. Ashton, ‘The
| Treatment of Capitalism by Historians’’ in Capitalism and the Historians, ed.
B. Hammond (1954), 50-51; J. L. and B. Hammond, The Bleak Age (Pelican
| edition A171, 1947), ch. V passim, especially p. 53; P. Mantoux, The Industrial
| Revolution in Eighteenth Century England (1928) 441-42; E. L. Woodward, The
Age of Reform (1938), 9-10, 566; Mrs C. S. Peel, ‘‘Homes and Habits’ in Early
| Victorian England, ed. G. M. Young (1934), I, 141. Instead of finding out what
| changes occurred in housing, many writers infer from parallel economic and
demographic changes what must have happened. Their wary but opinionated
/ comments harbour various interpretations, as they perhaps intended. It would
have facilitated our understanding more if like Clapham they had suspended

| judgment, or alternatively expressed their views clearly. There can be little
doubt, however, what most of them wanted to believe.

166 MISCELLANY

number of cottages on the smallest allowable space’’.* Smaller,
less substantial dwellings were packed closer together. Over-
crowding increased and a crisis in public health followed.
This view of what happened is shared by writers who other-
wise differ in their assessment of the effects of industrial change
on working class living standards in the early nineteenth
century. For instance, the Hammonds, whose writings are
charged with pessimism, attributed lower quality housing to
the greed of “‘speculative’’ builders. At a further remove they
blamed horrible urban conditions on the process of uncontrolled
industrialism itself.“ More recently, Professor Ashton who
holds that the Industrial Revolution brought widespread
material gains, has restated the case for a deterioration in
housing standards.* At a time when the majority of workers
secured higher real wages, the quality of town life for the
masses became worse. This was due not to industrial change
which on balance produced beneficial results even in the short
run, nor to unscrupulous jerry-builders, nor even to lack of
building regulations, but to government fiscal policy which
sought to divert resources into a struggle with France which
lasted for more than twenty years. The reduction of house
building during the war and the effect of excise duties in keep-
ing costs up afterwards produced a post-war rash of small,
shoddy cottage building the like of which had not been seen
before; ‘‘. . . if the relatively poor were to be housed at all
the buildings were bound to be smaller, less substantial, and
less well provided with amenities than could be desired’’.°

7A Report from the Poor Law Commissioners on the Sanitary Condition of
the Labouring Population of Great Britain, House of Lords Sessional Papers 1842,
xxvi (1842), 40. (Hereafter cited as Sanitary Inquiry Report (1842).) In the days
before cheap intra-urban transport, shelter was required within walking distance
of work. See Royal Commission on the State of Large Towns (1844), 355. (Here-
after cited as R. Com. Large Towns (1844).)

’ J. L. and B. Hammond, op. cit., chapters V and XIV passim. If population
grew faster than national income, and/or if the price of rapid capital accumula-
tion was a more uneven income distribution, then the amount which the working
class could afford to spend on housing may have declined. Since factory produc-
tion remained slight in Leeds before 1815, the town’s growing population depended
for its livelihood on traditional craft occupations at a time when the woollen
trade was far from flourishing. Thus real earnings might have declined.

4 Ashton, op. cit., pp. 41-53. See also T. S. Ashton, The Industrial Revolution
(1948), 160-61.

> T.S. Ashton, ‘“‘The Treatment of Capitalism by Historians’’, of. ctt., 50-51.

“Desired’’ — by whom? Housing has been the one problem arising out of town
growth that has most successfully defied solution. There has long been a sharp
clash of interests as to what should be done simply because housing involves not
only the sanctity of property rights but conflicting views about class structure
in a society, especially the proletariat’s place in society. Cf. J. H. Claphams
cautious view in An Economic History of Modern Britain (1926), I, 39.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 167

Under the impact of these forces, it is easy to imagine that
standards of housing for the lower orders deteriorated. If
supply fell behind the increase in numbers, overcrowding
would result. If “‘the net rent that most working men could
afford to pay was reduced’’, their housing needs would be
met by the provision of inferior accommodation.® And if,
owing to government fiscal policy, construction standards
declined after the war, it is not difficult to see how the squalor
described in the Reports of the 1840s originated. In Leeds,
for instance, more houses were built in the fifteen years after
Waterloo than in the previous generation. By 1840 half the
houses in the town were of post-war vintage. If badly con-
structed, these dwellings, together with the ageing pre-war
property of the central wards, may have given the town an
unenviable combination of shoddy new cottages and dilap-
idated old ones.’

To demonstrate that housing conditions took a turn for the
worse, writers have relied to a considerable extent on Reports
published in the early 1840s, particularly those composed by
Edwin Chadwick in 1842 and 1844.° These reports present
a composite picture based on conditions in different parts of
the kingdom. This in no way detracts from their value because
our knowledge of most things is patchy. But in the present
context they are only useful if they yield — or can be made to
yield — a view of average conditions. This they do not do.
To rouse those in authority and those who elected them, Edwin
Chadwick and his associates had to paint a grim one-sided
picture. Far from being the outcome of impartial fact-finding
bodies, these surveys were undertaken by men of action who
put forward theories derived not simply from a study of all
the facts but from their own moral systems and in pursuit of
their particular ends. Accordingly they sought to report the
worst urban conditions they could find. Evidence to the con-
trary they did not welcome. To hypotheses likely to thwart
the remedies which they already had in mind, they turned a

* Ashton, ‘‘The Treatment of Capitalism by Historians’’, op. cit., 50.

"Calculations about the number of houses in Leeds township in this article are
based on Poor Rate Assessment Books for the Township of Leeds, 1713-1805, 33
| vols. (LO/RB), in Leeds City Archives; The Census Reports of Great Britain,
| r8or-41; and a ‘‘Report upon the condition of the Town of Leeds and its inhabit-
ants” by a. Statistical Committee of the Town Council, in Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, IL (1839). (Hereafter cited as Leeds Poor Rate Bks., Pop.

Census, and Leeds Stats. Cttee. Rep. respectively.)
Si.e. Sanitary Inquiry Report (1842) and the R. Com. Large Towns (1844).

G

168 MISCELLANY

blind eye.® The worst bits were often used to represent the
whole, This brilliantly distorted snapshot of urban life in the
early 1840s did not pass unchallenged by Chadwick’s contem-
poraries and it cannot now be accepted at its face value.*® But
once the validity of certain parts is queried the foundations
of the case for deterioration soon begin to crumble not least
because the supplementary evidence so far cited to support
this view is not convincing.** For instance buildings are still
damaged today and sometimes collapse, especially during
stormy weather.*” Besides, the ‘‘perfect hurricane’’ of Thurs-
day night, 5 December, 1822, injured no cottages in Leeds
although a brand new dye-house suffered damage.**’ Indeed
the usual complaint is not the short life of cottage property,
but the fact that it stands up too long and eventually requires
demolition.

My object here, however, is not to criticise in detail the
sources that have hitherto been used to demonstrate a decline
in housing conditions. Instead I want to consider what
happened in Leeds, then the sixth most populous town in the
country.

I

As the number of people in a constant area increases, popula-
tion density rises and beyond a certain point overcrowding
occurs. This has been considered a major evil in the working
men’s districts of growing industrial towns and, in the absence
of a revolutionary change in building styles, a sure sign that
standards of accommodation got worse.**

An oft-quoted example of overcrowding in Leeds was the
Boot and Shoe Yard. This yard of some five thousand square
feet was an enclosed court off Wood Street, a narrow alleyway
between Vicar Lane and Back of the Shambles. In 1839 it
contained “‘thirty four houses occupied by 340 inhabitants,

*See R. A. Lewis, Edwin Chadwick and the public health movement, 1832-54
(1952).

Clapham, op. cit., I, 546-47; Sanitary Inquiry Report (1842), 120 ff.

1 Ashton, ““Treatment of Capitalism by Historians’, op. céi., 44, 47, 51. Does
the evidence in the Movning Chronicle, 16 September, 1850, throw light on the
quality of building construction a generation earlier?

12.On 16 September, 1959, a five-storey block of flats collapsed at Barletta in
Italy.

18 Teeds Mercury, 7 December, 1822. Two houses and a factory were damaged.
in Manchester. Cf. the evidence of Joseph Kaye, a Huddersfield builder in R.
Com. Large Towns (1844), Il, 330-32.

4 Sanitary Inquiry Report (1842), 120 ff.; Karl Marx and F. Engels, On
Britain (Moscow, 1953), 59, 108; L. Mumford, The Culture of Cities (1940), 164 ff-

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 169

or ten to a house. The number of rooms in these houses is
about 57; there are therefore an average of six persons to each
room’’.*° This situation, equal to a density of nearly three
thousand people per acre, was the outcome of a process stretch-
ing back more than a century. The town’s population increased
from six thousand in the 1690s to ten thousand in the 1740s,
and tenements, cottages and shops were erected in the passages
between the houses fronting the Briggate and on the gardens
behind them.*® The space that later became the Boot and Shoe
Yard at that time contained no buildings. It formed part of
an open space between nine cottages lining Vicar Lane and
two or three larger dwellings on the Briggate. Sometime be-
tween 1754 and 1765, the ownership of this area changed
hands and twenty-seven cottages were built on it.'’ Twelve
of these — “‘each consisting of a low Room and Chamber, a
Pantry, Cellar and Coalhouse’’ — formed the Boot and Shoe
Yard.** All along Vicar Lane, plots nine yards by twenty-
seven yards which formerly contained one dwelling, some right
up to the road, others set back in a garden, were being filled
with shops on the street front and cottages in spaces to the
rear which could be reached only through alleyways. And this
process occurred not only on Vicar Lane, but on Briggate,
Kirkgate, the Headrow and elsewhere. Part of the town’s grow-
ing population which rose from 14,000 in 1754 to 22,000 in
1790, was thus accommodated in a maze of courts and alley-
ways. In 1795 the Boot and Shoe Yard had 22 cottages: in
1805, 25; and in the late 1830s, 34. With the passage of time
the living space in this yard was shared by more and more
people.*?

In the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the Boot
and Shoe Yard had the blackest reputation in Leeds. It was
overcrowded; it had no water supply and only three out-

™ Local Reports on the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of
England, House of Lords Sessional Papers 1842, xxvii (1842), 353. (Hereafter cited
as Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842).) This paragraph is based on Leeds Poor
Rate Bks., 1713-1805, and the Wilson MSS. Collection, both in Leeds City Archives;
Leeds Directories for 1797, 1807 and 1809; Maps of Leeds for 1725, 1770 and 1815.

1® See Leeds Mercury, 22 March, 1728. Houses in Leeds were built of brick in
the 1720s. In Manchester many were apparently made of wood and clay; see
Mantouxm, Op. ctt., 367.

17 This area was developed late because two of the three parcels of land were
owned by widows for a long time.

“4 a Mercury, 3 April, 1770. In 1774 the occupants included four widows and

19 The three parcels of land sold between 1754/65 had 9 dwellings in 1742 and
1754, 46 in 1790 and 72 in 1805.

I70 MISCELLANY

offices; and it accommodated a floating population, ‘“‘these
houses are many of them receiving-houses for itinerant
labourers during the periods of hay-time and harvest, and the
fairs’’.*® Living in this yard, even for a short time, must have
been an unpleasant experience. But was it the kind of
experience shared by the majority of the town’s sixty-one
thousand working class inhabitants? No: conditions in the
Boot and Shoe Yard were clearly exceptional. So too were
conditions in the whole Kirkgate ward which was then approxi-
mately co-terminous with the former Upper, Middle and Kirk-
gate Divisions that covered the built-up area of the later
eighteenth century town. For two generations this ward had
had a lower rate of population growth than any other ward in
the township. In some parts of Kirkgate population had even
declined since 1800.** Furthermore the character of this ward
underwent a rapid transformation. The value of central land
was enhanced by its commercial importance. It became too
expensive for residential purposes.*” By 1839 Kirkgate had
significantly a much higher proportion of the town’s expensive
property than of its cheaper property. The cheap property that
remained did so simply because the rising tide of commerce
had not yet swept it away. Accordingly in Kirkgate ward,
surviving pockets of cheap housing (probably the worst in the
town) existed alongside a steadily growing number of shops,
warehouses and market halls, which on account of their non-
residential character exercised a lessening effect on population
density. In fact population density in this district barely in-
creased after the 1780s. Its slightly larger population had to
find accommodation in a shrinking residential area, however;
hence the black spots. But only a minority of the working
men’s families lived in such conditions. In 1839 Kirkgate
ward had less than 4% of the township’s population, only 14%
of the cheapest property, and 2.3% of the £5 to £10 houses.
It is essential, as Clapham has pointed out, not to confuse
average housing conditions with the worst.**

2° Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 353.

71 e.g. in the former ‘‘Upper Division’’.

2 For changing land values, see pp. 189-190, below; also see Leeds Poor Rate
Books, 1790-1805, 4 vols., and the Moot Hall property of the Charity School in
the MSS. of Thomas Wilson, at Leeds Central Library, DB204. A block of four
shops erected in 1823-4 by William Hey II in Bond Street cost £4,548 (excluding
land), and rising rents stirred shopkeepers to protest in unison. See the Hey
MSS. Collection in Leeds City Archives and Leeds Mercury, 11 February, 1832.

28 Clapham, op. cit., I, 39. In 1774 the former Kirkgate ward contained 22%
of the cheapest houses in the town and they accounted for two-fifths of the prop-
erty in that ward.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 7 i

To find out whether the standards of housing for the majority
of working class families took a turn for the worse requires a
more general method of assessment. There are two ways of
measuring density and both have been used to indicate over-
crowding; the number of persons per acre and the number of
persons per dwelling.** Unfortunately neither is helpful in this
enquiry.

Consider the first yardstick of change, the number of per-
sons per acre. To have any significance at all, a variable
population has to be related to a variable area, namely the
built-up area of a town. If a growing population is divided by
a constant administrative area irrespective of the extent to
which it has been developed, population density will inevit-
ably increase. So the number of people has to be related to
the area they actually live in. This is easier said than done.
Accurate maps corresponding to the dates for which popula-
tion is known are needed in order to gauge the extent of the
occupied area. Estimating the area raises further difficulties.
There is no satisfactory way of measuring irregular areas.
Furthermore an occupied zone contains not only houses but
factories, churches, shops, open spaces, roads and streets:
which parts are to be included or excluded from measurement?
In view of the quality of the available maps it is impossible
to expect more than an approximate result derived from con-
sistent methods.”°

The number of persons per acre in the built up zone of
Leeds (including nearby ribbon development along roads lead-
ing out of the central township) was 275 in 1725, 365 in
1770/1, 350/390 in 1780/1 and 341 in 1815. Physical expan-
sion did not match population growth in the first three-quarters
of the century, so that density increased. From the 1780s the
expansion of the urban frontier more than kept pace with
increases in population with the result that density began to
fall. Owing to the explosive expansion of the town after 1815
it becomes increasingly difficult to measure new areas of settle-
ment. In 1839 there were probably less than 200 persons per

74 Clapham, op. cit., I, 546-47. The only satisfactory measure is room-density.
But such data is not forthcoming until the Pop. Census of Igor.

2° The following paragraphs are based on Leeds Poor Rate Bks,. 1713-1805;
Pop. Census; Leeds Maps for 1725, 1770, 1781, 1815, 1831, 1839 and 1850. (For a
full list of Leeds maps, see K. J. Bonser and H. Nichols, ‘‘Printed maps and
plans of Leeds, 1711-1900’’, Publications of the Thoresby Society, XLVII (1960).)
Cf. Robert Baker’s mode of measurement in Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 348.

I72 MISCELLANY

acre. More important, however, than a precise figure is the
trend. In conjunction with other estimates of population and
area, there seems little doubt that population per acre, how-
ever measured, declined in the first half of the nineteenth
century.

The increase in density before the 1770s was due to the
erection of tenements and cottages on gardens and tenter
grounds.*® For the most part building was concentrated in
three central wards and on land immediately adjacent to them.
More houses were erected in Hightown and Kirkgate wards
between 1740 and 1772 than in all the other four wards north
of the river taken together. The result was that in the central
district, dwellings or commercial premises covered most open
ground by the third quarter of the century, and some families
already lived in cellars. Thereafter building had to take place
in the outer wards of the township. Between 1774 and 1795
for each additional dwelling in the Kirkgate, Mill-Hill and
Hightown wards, there were twelve in East, North-East and
West Wards.Within fifty years, a major shift in the distribu-
tion of population had taken place. Whereas three-quarters
of the citizens lived in the three inner wards in 1750, two-
thirds lived in the outer wards by 1800. This change was in
part caused by population growth. Concurrently, people were
forced out of the old central wards owing to the rising demand
for commercial sites there. The town thus began spreading
outwards and its population density declined.

This process proceeded without difficulty. In the first place,
the town’s population and extent remained so small as not
to make cheap urban transport a precondition for the expan-
sion of settlement.*” West to East across the town was no more
than a mile in 1840 and the population eighty-two thousand.
Besides, the majority of families were working class and lived
close to the factories and workshops that sprang up not in the

*° In the early eighteenth century, most central houses had gardens, e.g., see
Leeds Mercury, 22 August, 1728. By the third quarter, this was unusual, except
in such a context as ‘‘the house and little garden at the far end of the said
yard’’; Leeds Mercury, 4 December, 1770. Leeds Poor Rate Bk. for 1774 refers
to tenements and cellar dwellings in Kirkgate Ward for the first time, but there
was none in the outer wards.

27 Tt is important to realise that at this stage of the town’s development the
process is not like pouring water into a vessel. There was considerable scope fot
physical expansion before distance became a limiting factor. See Publications of
the Thoresby Society, XX XIII (1930), 149-53. The proposal for a ‘“‘Utopian New
Town of Leeds’’ just beyond Sheepscar shows how small the existing town was
at that date; Leeds Mercury, 30 July, 1825.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS i735

old centre but in the new suburbs. In the second place, Leeds,
unlike many towns, was fortunate in not having any physical
or legal obstacles to interfere with its expansion. Most prosper-
ous eighteenth century mercantile centres developed alongside
some sort of waterway which formed a barrier to subsequent
expansion.*® Until 1815 Leeds grew largely in the form of a
semi-circle north of the river. But the Aire had long been
bridged and in 1806 Holbeck and Hunslet were referred to as
industrial suburbs.*° In the post-war generation six more
bridges were built, and by 1841 a third of those living in the
built-up area dwelt south of the river. Nor was territorial spread
hindered by property rights.°° Freehold ownership spread
extensively from the early seventeenth century. In the mid-
eighteenth century, one large, compact and entailed estate close
to the occupied zone impeded the advance westward. Between
1793 and 1816, however, Parliament thrice granted permission
for the sale of this estate in half and quarter acre lots for middle
class houses.** With the development of middle class suburbs
after the war at the west end, and everywhere a rising demand
for commercial premises, population density in the built-up
area declined still further.

The foregoing account relates to the situation in the town
as a whole. It does not show what happened in working men’s
districts. In 1774, 58% of the dwellings in Leeds were inhabited
by artisans and labourers; in 1839, 77%. Did this growing
proportion of the population dwell in more or less crowded
conditions? To find out, we must examine the unfolding situa-
tion in working class neighbourhoods. But, in the case of
Leeds, this cannot be done with any promise of reliable results.
There are several reasons why this is so. First, in 1839, the
township comprised eight wards, each with the following per-
centage of working class dwellings: North-East 90%; East
88%, South 76%, North 75%, North-West 72%, West 64%,
Kirkgate 53% and Mill Hill 28%.°* It follows that no ward
housed exclusively one class or another so that the number

78 e.g. at Liverpool and Newcastle. This explains in part why conditions in old
ports were generally worse than elsewhere.

2° Report from the Select Committee\on the State of the Woollen Manufacture
in England (1806), 75.

°° e.g. at Nottingham. See J. D. Chambers, A Century of Nottingham History
OP Wilson MSS. at Leeds Central Library (DB32, 58). There may also have been

a temporary barrier to eastward expansion beyond Vicar Lane until the 1770s.
5? Sanitary Enquiry, England (1842), 349. See also p. 370.

174 MISCELLANY

of people per acre in any ward would reflect amongst other
things the proportions between the various classes in that ward.
The same holds true for business premises. Secondly, one or
two main wards selected on account of their predominantly
working class composition would not necessarily reflect
working class conditions as a whole. Between them, North-
East and East Wards contained nearly twenty-nine thousand
working class occupants. Their experience could only reflect
for better or worse the conditions of less than half the working
class inhabitants of the town. Thirdly, although the Census
records ward population after 1801, ward boundaries changed
and social frontiers continuously shifted, with the result that
we cannot regularly assess the relationship between one class
of people and a constant area. One predominantly working
men’s ward with a high population density in 1841 had a much
larger proportion of first and second class houses fifty years
earlier and for this reason its density would have been lower.
It would be possible to measure density changes in some pre-
dominantly working class wards for a short period of time.
In East Ward the number of persons per acre halved between
r8or and 1841. But this did not happen elsewhere in the town.
Robert Baker’s figures for 1839 in fact show no comparable
ranking between the number of persons per acre and the pro-
portion of working class dwellings in each ward.** The most
densely populated wards, North and North-East had four times
as many people per acre as the fashionable middle class
suburb of Mill-Hill with its squares, gardens and fine public
buildings. But East and South wards which contained a higher
proportion of working class dwellings than North Ward, had
only half as many persons per acre. Such divergencies raise
another issue; what does a density figure indicate? There can
be little doubt that living conditions in many parts of Kirkgate
and East Ward were worse than anything in North Ward
despite’ the fact that in the latter working men’s families were
thicker on the ground.** Moreover the advance fringe of settle-
ment frequently consisted of a street or several streets of

53 Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 349.

34 Tt is significant that most of the places singled out for opprobrium were located
in these two wards. Kirkgate was an old ward in the throes of transition; East
suffered from physical abnormalities and contained half the Irish who had settled
in Leeds as handloom weavers. Even in East Ward, however, the worst bits were
mainly those built a long time before: e.g. old property around Timble Bridge
erected in the 1720s. (See Leeds Mercury, 20 March, 1726).

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 175

cottages built almost in isolation on the town’s outskirts. Ow-
ing to the small sizes of such dwellings, measurement of their
exact area yields enormous densities. Yet does it make sense
to compare such a figure derived from a score of cottages
surrounded by countryside with a lower figure based on the
number of occupants in the horrible Boot and Shoe Yard?*°

Owing to lack of data, owing to discontinuities in the type
of population and the areas under consideration, and owing
to the inherent shortcomings of this yardstick, these assess-
ments lead nowhere. They neither sustain nor demolish the
view that between 1780 and 1840 overcrowding took a turn
for the worse in working class districts. The main use for such
figures is in inter-urban comparisons. Towns with high
densities frequently suffered from physical and legal deform-
ities.

The second measure, persons per dwelling, does not turn
out to be much better. In the first place, the Census returns
from 1801 to 1841 enumerate houses, not dwellings, and “‘the
interpretation of the term ‘house’ was left to the discretion
of the enumerator’’.** Robert Baker was aware of this prob-
lem and based his estimates on “‘the number of dwellings (not
however, in all cases separate houses, but dwellings occupied
by separate families) . . .’’.°’ Secondly, most reliable estimates
of population prior to r80r are themselves derived from
numbers of houses. For these reasons, it is difficult to ascer-
tain whether or not the number of persons per dwelling in-
creased. One independent figure of population in Leeds exists
for the later eighteenth century; and between 1801 and 1841
the two variables — population and occupied houses — can
be found in the Census of Population.** This data gives the
following information:

Persons per occupied house in Leeds Township

1775 ; 5.0 1821 : A
180r 4.6 1831 4.8
ols. / 4.5 1841 Ang

°° Such density figures are deceptive. Because of high land values, reformers
could not suggest lower density reconstruction but recommended taller building.
See R. Com. Large Towns (1844), 355-56. Cf. in the 1951 Pop. Census, there were
I3.2 persons per acre in Leeds. More interesting was the average of .75 persons
per room. Only 2.6% of the population lived more than two to a room which
denotes ‘‘over-crowding’’.

°° Guide to Official Sources, No. 2, Census Reports of Great Britain 1801-1931, 66.

°7 Teeds Mercury, 2 November, 1839. See also Sanitary Inquiry Report (1842),
zor.

°° F. Beckwith, ‘‘The Population of Leeds during the Industrial Revolution’’,
Publications of the Thoresby Society, XLI (1945), 124 ff.

176 MISCELLANY

During this span of time the number of ‘‘houses’’ in the town
increased six-fold and the population 5.3 times. Over the
period as a whole the situation therefore improved slightly:
there were 6% fewer occupants per “‘house’’ in 1841 than in
1775. Against this there were 7% more in 1831 than in I8rT.
This evidence thus suggests an improvement prior to I8II,
followed by a setback lasting twenty years and then a further
advance in the 1830s.

Such figures inspire little confidence. Are small variations
in a decennial time-series reliable indicators of trend? Con-
sider, for instance, the following table showing changes in the
number of vacant houses, their relation to the total stock and
the excess of families over occupied houses.*°

Excess of
% of unoccupied families over

Unoccupied houses houses occupied houses
1772 108 3.2 662
1801 188 Z.8 428
1811 329 Act 210
1821 853 8.3 271
1831 : 1,004 veal 555
1841 1,249 6.6 Not available

It appears that after 1801 there were enough empty houses to
allow each family to have its own dwelling. If crowding in-
creased, patterns of family behaviour and lack of income, not
shortage of accommodation, were presumably responsible.*°
In 1821 when the numbers of persons per house rose to 4.7 the
proportion of vacant houses reached its peak. Was this the
outcome of abnormal circumstances in 1821? If half the houses
then empty had been occupied, the average number of persons
per house would have been the same as in 1811. In 1839
fourteen hundred additional lodgers in the town would have
raised the average number of people in cheap houses by 0.1.
Were changes in the level of business activity and migration
sufficient explanation for these slight variations in the number
of persons per house?

The real shortcoming of this measure, however, is that, like
the previous one, it does not permit a distinction to be made
between residential densities in working class and middle class

°° Publications of the Thoresby Society, XXIV (1919), 34; Pop. Census, 1801-41.
“A certain amount of overcrowding is of course voluntary.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 177

districts. Yet to discover what happened to working class hous-
ing standards it is essential that such a distinction should be
made. Notwithstanding the fact that such estimates are subject
to the same objections as before,** the changes in three outer
wards between 1801 and 1841 are tabulated below. In Mill
Hill ward, where the population doubled during this period,
at least two-thirds of the houses had middle class occupants.
The East and North-East wards where the population trebled
consisted primarily of working men’s cottages.

Persons per occupied house in three wards in Leeds
Township 1801-41

Mill Hill East North-East
1801 5.2 Aid 4.5
1811 : 5.3 4.3 4.3
1821 5-5 4.3 4.4
1831 5-5 hae 4.6
1841* 3 5.2 4.5 4.8

(* Note: Ward boundaries were changed after 1835 and some of these 1841 figures
are not strictly comparable).

The first point to notice is that Mill Hill with more than five
per house had the highest rates and, of course, the largest
houses in the town.** By comparison, in the East and North
parts of the town small working men’s cottages averaged fewer
than five people. This was not, according to Robert Baker,
a density likely to “‘produce much of mortal mischief’’.*°
Secondly, numbers per cottage increased 5°% between 1821 and
1841 in East Ward, and 7%between 1811 and 1831 in North
East Ward.** Assuming no increase in cottage sizes, these
figures indicate a deterioration in the amount of house space
per head.

To summarise so far: between 1770 and 1840 the population
of Leeds grew at a rate of 2.3% per annum. During this period
the number of houses increased even more rapidly as did the

** See pp. 172-3, above.

* e.g. see Leeds Mercury, 14 August, 1809, 20 August, 1825; Leeds Intelligencer,
4 January, 1840; Plan of an Estate at Little Woodhouse, 1824 (in Leeds Reference
Library). Hanover Square was laid out in plots 8 yards by upwards of 30 yards;
toads were 10 yards wide and lanes 4 yards.

“* Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 366, Robert Baker declared on p. 367: ‘‘We

- find in all districts about the same ratio of persons to a house’’, and he concluded
that high mortality rates were not due to overcrowding.

| “4 There were more empty houses than the number of families in excess of the
- occupied houses in East Ward after 1821 and in North-East after 1811.

178 MISCELLANY

physical limits of the town. The general relationship between
population and houses or land therefore improved. This is
important because the proportion of ‘“‘working class’’ property
increased. It thus seems clear that Leeds did not suffer as
many towns apparently did from widespread overcrowding.*°
Nevertheless such scrutiny of working class districts as is
possible indicates the possibility of a deterioration in housing
standards. Two wards that sprang up beyond the confines of
the mid-eighteenth century town had large numbers of people
per acre in 1841. Yet other new districts, no less ““working
class’’ in composition, had only half as many. Both East and
North-East Wards, however, did show a slight but continuous
increase in the number of occupants per house after I81T.
Against this, South (with 76% of its dwellings occupied by
working class people in 1839) and North-West (with 72%)
display contrary trends, albeit in a somewhat erratic manner.
Taken all together this evidence provides no support for the
belief that owing to the pressure of numbers, working class
housing generally got worse. There were indeed by con-
temporary standards some nauseating black spots in Leeds*®:
in some wards the average cottage perhaps gave shelter to
slightly more people, but elsewhere the reverse was the case.
No general picture of deterioration emerges — provided that
the size and quality of working men’s dwellings did not change.

If

It may be fruitful at this juncture to approach the problem
head-on and ask some direct questions. Did the size of the
average cottage vary? Did its amenities change? Did the
standard of construction deteriorate after the war? Did the
amount of maintenance decline?

‘‘There is no question of more importance than the size of
the houses within the entire range of vital statistics’’.*’ If,
despite this assertion, Robert Baker devoted little space in
his reports on Leeds to the size and amenities of working men’s
dwellings, it was not to belittle the importance of this precept.
It was because the size, shape and amenities of one cottage
were much the same as another and his audience knew what

* Sanitary Inquiry England, (1842), 366-67.

“* People in all parties were agreed upon this: See Leeds Mercury and Leeds

Intelligencer, 2 November, 1839.
47 Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 358.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS I79

a working man’s dwelling was like.** Besides, larger cottages
were no part of the reformer’s case, only their ventilation,
water and sewage arrangements. So Baker did not deem it
necessary to elaborate on the size and structure of cottage
property.

On the eve of the American struggle for independence in
1774, 1,950 dwellings, or 58% of those in Leeds, were let
for less than £3 a year. The occupants of these houses were
artisans or labourers. None of the property stands today. To
find out about its size and amenities we must turn to maps,
estate papers and observers’ comments.*°

In 1790 the Committee of Pious Uses made a survey of their
extensive property in the town. Much of it consisted of
cottages.°° From Teal’s drawings it is possible to measure the
size of such dwellings and compare this with their rentals.
The smallest, cheapest accommodation consisted of ‘‘one low
room’’ ranging from three to six yards square, built over
stables or tucked away at the back of a yard. These single
rooms were rented for 4d. a week, mostly to impoverished
widows and spinsters. (The exact rent depended on three
factors: floor space, situation and age, A new house cost more
to rent and a room or cottage fronting a street fetched a few
pence more than one at the far end of the yard or astride a water
course). Cottages occupied by working class families with four
or five people usually had two rooms, a living-room with a
sleeping-chamber above. On the whole these rooms measure
14 feet each way, and their rent was 6d. a week. For gd. a
week an artisan could rent a slightly larger cottage with rooms
20 feet square. These variations in size and rent meant a great
deal in terms of physical comfort and status to those who passed
their lives inside their walls. But taking one place with another,

*® Robert Baker directed the house-to-house survey of the Town in 1838-39
authorised by the Town Council. (See Minute Book of the Statistical Committee,
1837-41, Leeds Corporation Records in the Civic Hall.) Many writers, e.g. Mum-
ford, Culture of Cities (1940), 183 ff. complain of the monotony of uniform rows
of cottages. This underlines their similarity; consequently if one district was
worse than another, it was due to special factors. This approach alters the shape
of the problem considerably. Far from being universal the evils were specific and
piecemeal remedies sufficient. Furthermore, it makes sense to talk about ‘“‘an
average house’’ only within chronological limits: these particular back-to-back
barracks were built in Leeds between 1815 and 1840.

“The remainder of this section is based on the Wilson MSS. Collection; Leeds
Statistical Committee Report; and Leeds Maps of 1815, 1850, and the large scale
1890 Ordnance Survey Map.

°° This property was located in many places, including Vicar Lane, Marsh
Lane, Upper Headrow and Briggate.

180 MISCELLANY

working men rented houses of one or two rooms with a floor
space between the extremes of nine and thirty-six square yards.

In the 1770s most of the cheap cottage property was situated
in three old inner wards. In the Briggate burgage plots the
yards, gardens and tenter grounds behind the larger houses
on the main street were gradually lined with brick cottages,
stables and workrooms of all shapes and sizes, jumbled to-
gether to form a hotch-potch of tiny disjointed buildings
around narrow, unpaved courts. Similar development took
place along Kirkgate and on the Headrow. Somewhere inside
each teeming court was a ‘‘necessary’’ or two over a cesspool
and, very rarely, a well. As far as was humanly possible, these
courts were by this time chock-full of buildings and saturated
with people. Before more buildings could be erected in the
inner wards, this property required demolition to provide space.
Unless more people crowded into this property, as happened
in some places like the Boot and Shoe Yard, the position in
the centre could hardly get worse. What could and did happen
towards the close of the eighteenth century was a duplication
of these wretched conditions further afield. The frontier of the
built-up area edged into the outer wards, reproducing there
the same higgledy-piggledy assortment of cottages, cellars,
shops and workshops, crowding around a maze of courts, each
with a single entrance. That is why until the end of the
eighteenth century the town had few streets or thoroughfares
and such a labyrinth of dark, narrow alleyways.

In 1839 there were seven times as many cottages as in 1774.
Over twelve thousand had been built in the intervening years,
half since the war. This post-war property stood on ground
that had never before been built on, mainly to the east and
north of the area previously occupied by houses in the later
eighteenth century. The majority of these cottages were erected
after 1800 in the form of short-terraces of back-to-back dwell-
ings. In some cases a single row was constructed. Elsewhere
large estates extending over several acres were run up. And
most of these cottages were aligned along streets 30 feet wide,
unpaved and open at both ends.°* The greater part of this
new housing thus presented a more regular, uniform appear-

"1 In addition to the afore-mentioned maps, see ‘‘Views of Old Leeds’’, 1902
(Leeds Reference Library). This evidence requires careful interpretation because
according to Leeds’ M.O.H. some slum property was improved by the installation
of water-closets in the 1880s; see House of Lords, Select Committee on Private
Bills, (Housing of the Working Class [Leeds]), 1896 Evidence, Q. 186-89.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS Tou

ance than the older property jumbled inside a court. A few
of these cottages still stand and are worth visiting. According
to the Statistical Committee’s Report which was based on a
house to house survey of the township, a working man’s house
consisted of ‘‘a cellar, a sitting-room, and a chamber’’.°? The
dimensions “‘of an ordinary cottage room in Leeds is five yards
square, and about four yards in height’’. The accuracy of the
first figure is fully confirmed by studying the Survey Map. An
overwhelming majority of cottages erected between 1815 and
1830 had an area of five by five yards. (Only those in the side
roads off Regent Street were smaller — 14 ft. x 13 ft.; and
there the streets themselves measured 25 feet across instead
of the usual 30 feet.) Photographs taken prior to the demolition
of these cottages which were described in 1896 as “‘old rookeries
. . . property which never at its best was any but of the poorest
description’’ show that a room could not have been four yards
high. The elevation of the eaves above ground was only 15
feet?’ and this covered two floors. Later generations in fact
criticised the low ceilings in these cottages. It follows that the
area of the principal rooms in these cottages was no smaller
than in those occupied at the end of the eighteenth century,
and if, as seems likely, most post-war cottages had cellars,
then more than half the working men’s families in Leeds had
more space than their forbears two generations earlier. For
these dwellings, working men paid rents ranging from £2 to
f#,10 a year, depending on the size, situation and age of the
property. In the first decade of its life a cottage fetched £12
a year. Likewise the few cottages with two bedchambers cost
a few pounds more each year. According to Robert Baker,
however, the majority paid between £4 and £7 a year.**

Three per cent of the dwellings in the township were cellars,
costing a shilling a week and located mainly in older property.
Many of the township’s five thousand Irish lived in them, not
merely because they could not afford higher rent, but on
-account of xenophobia and social ostracism. The aged poor,
widows and spinsters could not rise to anything more expensive,
and Baker thought that “‘such occupiers look comfortable
enough’’. In the inner wards too, shopkeepers paid rents of

°? Leeds Stats. Cttee. Rep. See also Leeds Mercury, 2 November, 1839.

°° House of Lords, Select Committee on Private Bills (Housing of the Working

Classes [Leeds]), 31 July, 1896, Minutes of Evidence, Q. 186. See also Sanitary
Enquiry, England (1842), 401.

| ** Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 360-61, 358.

182 MISCELLANY

#30 to £50 a year for cellars which they used for commerce.
Their number is not included in the proportion of cellar dwell-
ings and in discussing whether this type of property should
be abolished, Baker stated that ‘‘their exemption from restric-
tion, when above a certain rental, might be worth considera-
tien”.

At least half the working men’s families in the town thus
had more living space than their counterparts in the late
eighteenth century, and except for a tiny minority in cellar
dwellings, none had less.°°

In the late 1830s, the town’s water supply was substantially
improved for the first time since 1700. ‘‘A most abundant
supply of pure water’’ became available ‘‘all over the town
at a reasonable rate’’.’’ Cottagers who had previously fetched
water from afar at a Id. a week could now have it carried into
their houses for an additional rent of 5/- to 6/- a year. Tap
water and a sink in a kitchen alcove became a standard fixture
in future working class houses. Simultaneously, the abundance
of water made it worth while for the Improvement Com-
missioners and later the Corporation to improve the local
sewage system, beginning at the east side. And a reduction in
the price of water-closets placed an amenity that had so far
been confined to middle class houses within the reach of work-
ing class families who could pay a higher rent. Back-to-backs
erected after the mid-1840s invariably had outside privies at
the side of each block. But before these sanitary improvements
and for a long time afterwards, most cottage dwellers bought
their water off carts or carried it from distant stand-pipes;
and toilet arrangements remained as insanitary and inade-
quate as they had been fifty years earlier. Only a minority
felt the benefit of running water, water-closets, gas lighting
and cooking ranges in the r84os.°* Another generation passed
before the majority shared in these facilities. Meantime they
managed as their forbears had done two generations earlier,

°° Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 366, 361; Leeds Stats. Cttee. Rep., Table
TII. In 1871 Leeds still had 800 cellar dwellings and these were cleared in the
following twenty years; see Dr Goldie’s evidence, Q. 9853, before the R. Com. on
the Housing of the Working Class (1884).

°° This squares with the Hammonds’ view that new cottages in Leeds were
larger. J. L. and B. Hammond, Bleak Age, (Pelican edition, 1947), 56. I cannot
find evidence in the sources which they cite to show that the new cottages were
also flimsier.

57 Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 357. See also my article on Leeds ‘‘Water

Supply” in the Leeds Journal, XXVII (1956), 375-78.
5° R. Com. Large Towns (1844), TI,‘ 337.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 183

perhaps rather worse off for water until 1837, and plagued
in some places by uncleared refuse and uncleansed cesspools.
Neighbourhoods had arisen “‘in which there is neither water,
nor out-offices’’.°® As a result, the average quality of life may
have been worse in these respects.°°

What evidence is there to show whether the quality of cottage
building or maintenance got better or worse? So far I have
found none. Like other reporters, Baker often hinted that to
build “‘the largest number of cottages on the smallest allow-
able space’ with an economical provision of sanitary amenities
in order to enlarge profits, produced bad housing.°* But he
is never specific about the quality of construction. If he ob-
jected to anything it was the lack of ‘‘architectural order or
regularity’, the old unventilated courts and culs-de-sac, both
the kind of shortcoming which could be set right by bye-
laws.°* Yet these aspects of the urban scene had in fact shown
some improvement in the nineteenth century. Baker himself
noted that prior to building in the outer wards, a street develop-
ment plan was drawn up, and only then was the property sold
off in small lots. For one landlord in East Ward, ‘‘who
erected his houses upon a good plan’’, Baker was all praise.
This estate accommodated ‘‘a large population . . . in every
variation of size and order of cottage dwellings . . . with a
due share of out-offices . . . and with streets well paved and
sewered . . . The whole estate bears upon the face of it comfort
and enjoyment. Every house is clean and neat, and tenanted
by a respectable occupier’’.®** Despite the fact that even in

°° Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 351-52. See also Leeds Mercury, 2 Novem-
ber, 1839. Brook Street had not been swept since its inception in 1824 on the
eastern outskirts of the town and it did not have one usable privy. Against such
cases must be balanced improvements; see Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 352.
°° In what sense ‘‘worse’’? The occupants were not deprived of amenities to
which they had become accustomed. Nor did these amenities ordinarily become
scarcer on a per capita basis. Baker thought the situation got worse because the
death rate rose, but did the inhabitants realise that the odds against their survival
had shortened? Middle-class citizens may have been persuaded that the situation
- got worse in so far as their health was endangered, but this is not a relevant nor
a reliable indicator of deterioration. Only working class inhabitants themselves
could really judge.
®t Sanitary Inquiry Report (1842), 40. According to the Leeds Stats. Cttee.
| Rep., residential property offered a net yield (after maintenance) of 7.2% on
investment in 1839, and for cottage property by itself around 10%. Between 1770
-and 1840, the total value of rents increased more than tenfold, over twice as
| fast as the population.
| ® Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 350, 353.
83 Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 361, 358. See also Leeds Mercury, 2 Novem-
ber, 1839, which reports Baker as praising cottages built by Croisdale and Craddock
between Cavalier Hill and Ellerby Lane, and by James Holdforth in Mill Street.

H

184 MISCELLANY

these cottages, the sexes must have intermingled in ways that
Baker condemned when it occurred elsewhere, the planning,
sanitation and the respectability of the neighbourhood recom-
mended the estate to him. In his mind, it stood at the opposite
extreme to the Boot and Shoe Yard in Kirkgate. But he does
not say whether the houses themselves were built any better.

The local building industry numbered some three hundred
firms in the 1830s.°* Half a dozen were large enough to under-
take the construction of a mill or the erection of a large housing
estate either to order or for re-sale as a speculation. But most
firms employed fewer than a dozen men, and tendered for con-
tracts to tile or to glaze, or to lay bricks or do wood-work for
a few houses at a time. At this level, entry into the industry
was easy and competition intense, though not so intense as
to result in a higher turnover of firms than in the local flax
or engineering trades. (Half the firms in existence in 1817
were still there in 1834, and three-eighths in 1842.) Some con-
tractors no doubt were rogues. At least one used second-hand
bricks on a job — apparently without any ill-effect on the life
of the building. But whether a cottage was built by a speculator
for re-sale or put up to order, it was in the owner’s interest
to get value for his money.°*’ This way he spent less on repairs
and the asset had a longer earning life. Self-interest thus pre-
vented slipshod building more than anything else. Of course
high quality materials were not used any more than they would
be today in ordinary house building. But a London architect
and a Huddersfield builder told Chadwick that houses did not
collapse on account of 9-in. walls or weak bricks. Weakness
in a building, then as now, was the result of poor foundations
and skimped bonding, the result of bad design and workman-
ship rather than bad materials.°° Unfortunately, we do not
know whether the quality of craftsmanship declined in the
1820s owing to the increased tempo of building. At the time
nobody complained about building, but that in itself is neither
surprising nor conclusive.°’

Nor is it possible to find out whether cottage property was

64 Based on Leeds Directories for 1817, 1834 and 1842. See also my article on
“House Building in the roth Century”’ in an Leeds Journal, XXVII (1956), 157-59-
e.g. Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), :
*° RR. Com. Large Towns (1844), I, 351; ii, 330: ff.
*7 Complaints of a later generation centred on backland building, not muleeae
struction; and successive Medical Officers of Health have differed considerably
in their views about congestion.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 185

properly maintained. In 1832 Humphrey Boyle reckoned that
it cost 4d. a week to whitewash the inside of a cottage twice
a year. Eyewitness reports show that in some districts the
tenants did whiten their walls, but elsewhere neglected them.°*
But external maintenance such as painting was a landlord’s
responsibility, Those who compiled the 1839 Statistical Report
allowed for a regular outlay of 5/- to I0/- a year on repairs
when estimating the net yield of cottage property.°® Whether
landlords spent this amount is a matter for speculation. Factory
owners who invested in streets of houses as well as shopkeepers
and overseers who used their small savings to buy a cottage
for renting out had every incentive to repair their property
for a generation and longer, provided they secured tenants
without substantially reducing their rents. The blighted air
that hovered over whole districts of unpainted, damaged post-
war cottages, came after the 1840s. Then better-off artisans,
‘‘those who might advocate a better state of things depart’’
leaving behind the improvident and impoverished.’° Just as
earlier the Boot and Shoe Yard degenerated into slums within
two generations, after the 1840s the cottages built in the early
nineteenth century were occupied increasingly by those at the
foot of the economic ladder; immigrants, misfits, unemployed
and destitute. Consequently whole neighbourhoods went down-
hill. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a quarter of
those in the York Street Insanitary Area, which was at last
scheduled for demolition, had no employment and paid be-
tween 1/1Id. and 3/1o0d. a week for rent, half as much as
most working class tenants in the town.”*

We may never know whether early nineteenth century

°° See the Appendix; W. Brown, ‘Information Regarding Flax Spinning at
_ Leeds’ (1821), photostat in Leeds Reference Library; Sanitary Inquiry, England
| (1842), 361.
°° Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 358. Wilson MSS. Collection (DB 32/7)
_shows that on one middle-class house expenditure on repairs averaged {£2 per
| annum (1792-1808) and rent over 21.
_ Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 362. Industry also moved farther out and
the new industrial housing estates were generally praised. Indeed they did not
come under attack until the second quarter of the twentieth century. A very
| high proportion of these houses were inhabited by owner-occupiers. For the lay-
out, amenities and cost of these dwellings, many of which are still in use (and
being improved for continued occupation in the future), see E. M. Lupton, Housing
| Improvement (1906); Rules and Regulations of the Leeds Building and Investment
i Society (estab. 1846). For a picture of housing in Leeds in the third quarter of
| the nineteenth century, see the evidence of Dr Goldie, Leeds M.O.H., in R. Com.
on the Housing of the Working Class (1884), Q. 9763-9855.
| ™ Jnl. Sanitary Institute, XVIII (1897), 466-67; see also Lupton, op. ctt., 3;
Yorkshire Post, 6 July, rgor.

186 MISCELLANY

cottage property, especially that built after the war, was
inferior in construction or badly maintained. What can be
said is that on the debit side, the sanitary arrangements of
working men’s cottages did not improve until the late 1830s
and perhaps deteriorated before that. On the credit side, post-
war cottages were larger than those built in the eighteenth
century, and the chaos of cottages crammed into narrow courts
and culs-de-sac was replaced by wide open streets.

Ii

It does not follow that because working men’s cottages did
not become smaller, factories, war and population growth had
no impact on the housing situation. These forces produced a
different effect; rents increased.

The course of rents based on the average of all rated property
in the town shows that after remaining stationary for most
of the eighteenth century, they rose by more than a third
between the 1790s and 1830s.’* No distinction is drawn in
these estimates between cottage property and better class
houses and commercial premises. To average the rentals of
working class property alone on a ward basis would be a
laborious task. Instead, as an approximation, the rents of
cheap houses in two adjacent wards with different property
values have been analysed. Land in Kirkgate, an old central
ward, was in urgent demand for commercial use by the close
of the eighteenth century; simultaneously East Ward was
being developed for the first time as a residential district.

During the 1740s and 1750s extra housing for the additional
population was supplied in the central wards. Kirkgate cottage
rents rose a fifth to a sixth at that time. No further increase
occurred in the next generation despite the faster increase of
population from the late 1760s. Building in Kirkgate had
reached saturation point and housing had to be provided
mainly in the outer wards. In the 1780s rents again increased
in common with many other prices. In a general way this

72 This section is based on Leeds Poor Rate Books (1713-1805); the Wilson MSS.,
DB32, 58; Middleton Colliery Records (Leeds City Archives); Leeds Stats. Cttee.
Rep.; Rentals of Leeds Manor at Leeds Central Library, DB149. A comparison
between the Poor Rate Books, and the Charity School and Pious Trust rentals
in the MSS. of Thomas Wilson, DBz204, shows that between the 1740s and the
1770s the sum assessed for rates was the same as the annual rental. Thereafter
the rentals of some property increased, thereby falling out of line with assess-
ments, especially after 1800.

i

WORKING MEN’S COITAGES IN LEEDS 187

was due to both rapid population growth and to pressures on
factor prices leading in some cases to higher wages. But the
precise rise in rents was closely related in each locality to land
requirements for purposes other than housing. A group of
Kirkgate cottages let for 30/- a year each in 1765 and 1774,
fetched 40/- by 1790. But few families had to contend with
such large increases. Since 1774, twelve out of every thirteen
dwellings had been erected outside the central wards where
land was cheaper, and four-fifths of these houses were for
working class tenants. Consequently in East Ward rents rose
only 3% in the 1780s. Very poor people could find a tiny room
for 20/-. At the other extreme, a few large new cottages cost
40/- a year. But most rents lay in between these extremes,
around 26/- a year in the new districts, compared with 30/-
to 50/- in the centre around Kirkgate.

Two hundred new dwellings were provided each year
Heeween” £790 ald 21795. hen the output im the’ next
quinquennium fell to little more than a quarter of this figure
owing perhaps to the war with France. The peace of Amiens
in 1801 signalled a big outburst of building. Nine hundred
new cottages were run up in the outer wards between 1800
and 1805. For the first time landlords owning large blocks
of cottages appear on the local scene. Richard Kendall, a
pocket-book maker, had an estate of sixty-five cottages in
East Ward; Mr Paley, the only soap boiler in the town,
erected 175 cottages on the Bank. Simultaneously subdivision
and building within existing old property had been carried
to such an extent as to warrant demolition and reconstruction.
Thirty-three dwellings surrounding two narrow courts near
the Parish Church were replaced by thirty-five cottages in
rows, let for 22/- to 33/-a year. Some of the former occupants
suffered. Widow Whiteley and Betty Fenton had to find an
extra 6/- and 8/- a year for rent. But of the ten who stayed
on, half paid a lower rent.

Despite the war, rents did not rise before 1805. In view
of the fact that population growth continued unabated, one
explanation might be that house rents responded slowly to
| market changes. Nobody expected the war to continue for
_ ever. Nor did building halt completely during the hostilities.
_ Indeed the outburst initiated by the Peace of Amiens prob-
_ably made up for any deficiencies that occurred in the late

188 MISCELLANY

1790s.’* Another likelihood is that landlords could not in-
crease cottage rents unless their tenants either had a rise in
money wages or the prices of other things fell. Except by a
short-sighted policy of neglecting their property, landlords
could not gain from market disequilibrium by altering the
quality of the existing stock of houses, thereby offering less
for the same rent. If they raised rents without a commensurate
increase in working men’s wages, tenants might be compelled
to share more accommodation, thereby increasing the number
of empty houses, A landlord could only be sure that he would
not stand to lose so long as there was an excess demand for
housing. **

This situation was transformed in the last decade of the war.
First of all, an increasing number of newly prosperous mer-
chants and manufacturers chased after a limited stock of
superior houses in the Mill Hill district. Whenever an opportun-
ity arose after 1804 the proprietor advanced the annual rent
of his property by £10 or sold at an enhanced value; and in
some cases a second £10 increase occurred before the war
came to an end.’” The increase in working men’s rents began
later, sometime between 1811 and 1816. After 1805 prices of
raw materials and consumer goods started rising and so also
did wage rates in some crafts. Furthermore, between 1805 and
181r only half the number of houses were built each year that
had been built earlier in the decade.’® But according to the
Census figures there was no extra pressure on housing in I811I.
After that date the situation became tighter. The town’s popula-
tion began to grow much faster towards the end of the war.
Prices of many things, including land, building materials and
labour, increased sharply. As a result working class rents more
than doubled, a cottage usually costing 2/- a week by 1819.

During the post-war generation rents remained at this higher
figure, and increased even further. A new cottage cost fI a
month, a ‘‘dank and dark cellar’’ 1/- a week in 1842. But
‘the majority’? of working men paid between 1/7d. and

8 The number of persons per house fell until 1811. See the table on p. 175.

™ Tn r80r1 the number of empty houses was lower than the number of families
in excess of occupied houses. (See the table on p. 176.) By 1811, however, the
situation was reversed. Newcomers at the bottom of the economic ladder put
pressure on cheap accommodation and forced its price up. (e.g. the Boot and
Shoe Yard, Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 353.)

75 Wilson MSS (DB32/7). The opportunity to raise rents presumably occurred
when leases lapsed.

76 There was no building on the Wilson Estate between 1806 and 1816.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 189

2/i10d. a week.’’ The Statistical Report of 1839 shows that
a third of the cottage rents were less than 2/- a week, two-
thirds between 2/- and 4/-. By comparison, in 1774 two-
thirds of the lower orders had paid less than od. a week, and
the rest not more than 1/2d. The cost of accommodation thus
rose sharply after 1805 and working men had to pay between
two and three times as much for their cottages in the post-war
generation.

IV

Rent increased and remained high after the war when prices
generally declined for several reasons; the upsurge of popula-
tion, steady or rising money wages for many workers, and
another factor, increased building costs. Broadly speaking the
cost of building a labourer’s cottage increased by three-fifths.
Some erected in 1793 cost £43 apiece, excluding land;
immediately after the war, they cost £80. ‘‘The average cost
of a good cottage house’ in 1839 was £75 including land;
in 1844, the head-mechanic at Wilkinson’s F lax factory ‘ ‘built
ten cottages at a cost of nearly £800’’.”®

Building costs went up for two reasons. First, the value
of the relatively scarce factor, land, rose with cumulative
momentum after 1770. This was due to growing demands by
industry and inhabitants on a limited amount of space within
walking-distance of the town centre. Sixteen thousand houses
were built between 1770 and 1840; and in the first forty years
of the nineteenth century, there was a net addition of nearly
three and a half thousand new firms all requiring premises
in the town. Open ground alongside the Leeds and Liverpool
canal soared to £500 an acre in the 1790s much to the surprise
of James Watt, Jr. In view of the boom in land values, the

Wilson family disposed of property in Mill Hill in 1816 for
£1,500 an acre. An estate, a mile west of the town, valued
at £10,000 in 1793 fetched £80,000 in 1825. A noble lord
: ™ Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 360-61. The rent of a new cottage was
| a/od.; ibid., 358. It is worth noting that property under £5 was exempt from
Improvement Rates; Leeds Mercury, 9 November, 1838. On a new house paying
| a rent of 2/73d., 4d. went on rates; letter of H. Boyle to J. Boyle, 15 December
| 1844, in the family records of Boyle & Son, Yarn Merchants, Leeds.

| 7* Letter of H. Boyle to J. Boyle, 5 December, 344; Leeds Stats, Cttee. Rep.;
| Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 358; Wilson MSS. Leeds Provident Building
| Society offered five types of house ranging in cost from £75 to £155, excluding
| land. The cheapest had a living-room, 14 ft. x 14 ft., and 2 bedrooms, 14 ft. x 8 ft.

and to ft. x 6 ft. See Mr Fatkin’s evidence before ‘the R. Com. on The Housing
| of the Working Class (1884), Q. 10,784-10,956.

I9O MISCELLANY

who sold land south of the river for £45 an acre at the con-
clusion of the American war, received £1,500 an acre after
the Napoleonic war. It would be no exaggeration to say that
land values appreciated tenfold in the half-century after 1770
and particularly in the twenty years or so after 1805. Since
the site needed for a cottage amounted to between a fifth and
an eighth of its total cost in 1842, advancing land values raised
appreciably the expense of erecting a dwelling.”°

In fact, it soon became recognised that a site costing more
than £700 an acre was too expensive for cottage building.*°
This limitation henceforth became a chronic source of difficulty.
Tackling slum clearance at the end of the nineteenth century,
the Corporation declared that ‘“‘the central parts of the city...
were or ought to be too valuable to use for working class
houses . . . ordinary single houses [by comparison with multi-
storey dwellings] erected upon the cheapest land would be at
a rental entirely beyond the reach of people it is desirous of
rehousing’’.** Yet despite the operation of a tramway service,
the local authority “‘could not get the workpeople by cheap
tram or omnibus fares from the central parts of the city’’.**
Earlier, without cheap transport, the housing problem must
have been even more acute. For the boom in land values was
intensified by the extent to which additional building was
effectively restricted to the inner township.

The other factor behind increasing building costs was a
substantial rise in material prices and building wages. The
brickwork of a cottage accounted for two-fifths of its total
cost.*°* Between 1770 and 1840 the price of bricks in Leeds
increased sixfold. This happened despite an expansion of the
local industry from less than half a dozen brickmakers
in 1797, to 17 in 1817 and 49 in 1834. The biggest jump in
prices occurred sometime during the war, owing in part to
an excise duty of 5/1od. a thousand. If this duty had been
repealed when peace came, bricks would undoubtedly have
been cheaper. But whether their prices would have fallen by
half remains highly conjectural. Even supposing that had

™ Matthew Murray, ed. E. Kilburn Scott (1928), 34-36; Wilson MSS.; Leeds
Mercury, 27 August, 1825, 24 September, 1825; Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842),
358

°° Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 358.

8 Jnl. Sanitary Institute, XVIII (1897), 470.

* [btd., 473.

*8 For a break-down of building costs, see Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 339.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS IgI

happened, bricks would still have cost three times as much
as pre-war, and brick prices exhibited no sign of a downward
trend. Extra demand for factory and house construction, and
in places outside Leeds the substitution of brick for stone,
kept the market buoyant. Indeed the local borough’s brick-
makers did not flourish merely on the town’s requirements.
The number of brickyards increased faster than the number
of bricklaying contractors in Leeds. Despite their low density
value, bricks could be shipped cheaply by water to other parts
of the Riding. In this connection, it is significant that in West
Yorkshire, apart from Leeds, only Bradford and Wakefield
had any brickmakers in 1837; and neither town had a fifth of
the number in Leeds. **

The woodwork of a cottage — both timber and labour —
accounted for a third of its total cost. In this case too, material
prices rose substantially during the war. Before the mid-
eighteenth century, timber grown in the vicinity of the town
met most local needs. By the 1770s, however, it had become
as cheap to import Baltic wood, although freight. charges
almost trebled the actual sum paid for the timber itself. With
this dependence on imports an organised market soon evolved
for grading and pricing different varieties of wood. Leeds had
several large merchant importers by the 1780s, eight in 1814
and eleven twenty years later. The average price of timber
used at Middleton Colliery rose between 1762 and 1799 from
a third to three-quarters according to the type of wood. During
the Napoleonic war, Baltic timber became scarce and subject
to heavy duties. Soft wood prices in Leeds trebled or quad-
rupled compared with pre-war. Subsequently, the extraordin-
ary demand for wood in conjunction with the retention of the
tariff prevented any fall in price during the first half of the
nineteenth century to the pre-war level.*°

So far no local records have come to light to show what
happened to the prices of other building materials, though
it has been suggested that paint, tile and glass prices rose
substantially during the war. On the labour side, wages of

building craftsmen and labourers approximately doubled be-

** Middleton Colliery Records (Leeds City Archives); Alfred Place Building
| Society Records (in the custody of Messrs. Ford and Warren, Solicitors, Leeds);
Leeds Directories, 1797 to 1849.

*° Middleton Colliery Records; Marshall Collection at The Brotherton Library,
University of Leeds; Business records of William Illingworth & Sons, Leeds,
| timber importers. See also my article on ‘‘Woodworking’’ in the Leeds Journal,
XXIX (1958), 93-99.

1g2 MISCELLANY

tween the 1790s and 1830s.°° At the same time, no contrary
forces operated to reduce costs. Only recently has mechanisa-
tion affected the building industry in a manner likely to
improve efficiency, though cheaper transportation in the early
nineteenth century may have kept down the expense of
materials brought from a distance. As stated above, the local
building industry consisted of many firms, tendering in
competition with one another for a particular type of work
such as tiling or glazing. Consequently contractors were prob-
ably efficient at a low level of productivity. Therefore through-
out this period, and especially after 1805, forces operated,
unchecked by any opposite tendencies, to enhance building
costs.*’ This raised rents for working class tenants.

V

If in response to the pressure of population, war and
industrial change, the price of maintaining the size and
structure of houses was a substantial rise in rent, did this
adversely affect working class consumption in other directions?
Did an increase in rents cause a reduction in the standard of
living?

In the early 1790s, after two decades of rapid population
growth but before factory production made much impact on
industrial organisation in Leeds, breadwinners were occupied
as craftsmen or labourers, for the most part in the textile
industry. A Holbeck weaver producing fine fabric earned 15 /-
to 16/- a week; skilled craftsmen in other trades — a stone-
mason for instance, or a carpenter — received between 15/-
and 18/-. Unskilled day labourers who had never been bound
as apprentices, drew 9/- to 12/-. The range of weekly earnings
thus lay between g/- and 18/-, though it is not possible to
say what the actual distribution was for the labour force as
a whole.*®

°° See footnote 88, and also G. R. Porter, The Progress of the Nation (1847),
255 ff.; A. and N. L. Clow, The Chemical Revolution (1952), 279 ff.; Capitalism &
the Historians, ed. F. H. Hayek (1954), 48-49.

87 Cf. the cost of building Marshall’s Mills was 2/2d. per square foot in 1791,
2/- in 1795, 4/10d. in 1808, 5/8d. in 1816, 5/1d. in 1826, 3/10d. in 1830 and 4/7d.
in 1837. These figures are not strictly comparable because the type of work
varied. Nevertheless they illustrate the general trend.

®’ See my forthcoming book, ‘“‘The Industrial Development of Leeds’’, in
Publications of the Thoresby Society. Wage data has been drawn from Report
from the Sel. Cttee. on the State of the Woollen Manufacture in England (1806),
25, 69-79, 103-05, 116; Middleton Colliery Records, 1762-1871; The Marshall Collec-
tion and the Lupton Papers (Brotherton Library); W. B. Crump, ‘‘The Leeds
Woollen Industry’’, Thoresby Society Publications, XXXII (1931), 25, 77-78, 89-90,
287; E. W. Gilboy, Wages in the Eighteenth Century (1934), 179.

ae ee

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 193

_ At the time two-thirds of the dwellings in the town were
rented for Jess than £3 a year or 1/2d. a week. Most cottages
were 6d., larger dwellings g4d., and single rooms 3d. or 4d.
For a labourer earning 9/- to 12/-, the 6d. spent on rent
amounted at the outside to nearly 5% of his income. A skilled
weaver or craftsmen receiving 15/- to 18/- who paid gid. for
a cottage, spent no more than 5% of his income on accom-
modation. Even a rent of 1/2d. out of a wage of 15/- came
to only 8% of income, and there were only sufficient houses
at this rent to accommodate a minority of better paid crafts-
men. It seems likely therefore that the working man spent
about 5% of his income on rent before the war.*°
It is possible to be more precise about the situation fifty
years later. The Report of the Statistical Committee submitted
in 1839 gives average earnings for more than half the male
workers in the town, that is, for virtually all the adult males
who were not simply labourers. A quarter, consisting of skilled
workers chiefly in the expanding industries, such as mechanics,
iron moulders, and mill-wrights, earned 20/- to 26/- a week.
Two-fifths, including such trades as wool-sorters, bricklayers,
dyers, hatters and coopers, earned 15/- to 20/-. A third, for
the most part handicraft workers, such as shoemakers, tailors,
weavers and woolcombers, earned 11/- to 15/-. On a par with
this bottom group on the economic ladder stood labourers
numbering some 3,000 or 7% of the borough’s occupied labour
force in 1841. Excluding apprentices and boys under sixteen
working in mills, it seems that 27% of the male workers earned
over £1 per week, 30% between 15/- and £1, and 43% be-
tween 11/- and 15/-. These earnings were roughly speaking
a quarter to a third above the corresponding levels for the
aegos.”°
| How far these figures indicate family incomes is a difficult
_problem. Since slightly more than two-fifths of the population
/were occupied and since the average family size was nearly
| five, two persons worked in each family. By including a wife’s
jor child’s earnings, the total household income would be
| substantially raised. Baker did this when estimating the earn-
jings of Irish immigrants; in November 1839, to the average
jmale wage of 13/1d., he added 4/- earned by one child.”’

®® This proportion is low by present day standards.
°° Teeds Stats. Cttee. Reb.: see also note 88.
*1 Sanitary Inquiry, England (1842), 362-65.

194 MISCELLANY

But such an adjustment cannot bring reality into clearer focus.
It does not take account of periods of intense dependency within
a family. Those who managed to reach an old age or those
with small children were not better off in this respect; others
must have increased their family incomes considerably through
the earnings of kinsfolk. On the question of fact Baker never
knew how important these marginal earnings were. For he
maintains that the earnings of children under sixteen years
were seized by parents for their own use, and also that ‘‘but
a very small portion of the earnings of children are then
appropriated to the domestic use of the entire family’’.°? Even
now we are not much better informed about family as opposed
to individual incomes. Since those who constructed family
budgets based their accounts on adult males’ earnings, and
since this procedure was followed when discussing the situa-
tion in 1790, it is best to follow these precedents. But it is
worth remembering that estimates founded on the bread-
winner’s income overstate the case for hardship or poverty.

Thirty-eight per cent of the cottages in Leeds were rented in
1839 for no more than 2/- a week, and sixty-two per cent at
more than 2/- but below 4/-. If the 43% earning 11/- to 15/-
paid 2/- or slightly less in rent, this would be 13% to 18%
of their incomes. Likewise if the other 57% earning from 15/-
to 26/- a week paid between 2/- and 4/- in rent, the proportion
which they spent on rent would range from 13% to 27% for
a 15/- wage-earner, and from 8% to 15% for a 26/- wage-
earner. At a mean rental of 2/10.the range would be between
rr1% and 19% for these income groups. Recalling that at one
extreme, 555 cellar dwellings were let for 1/- a week and at
another level several thousand new cottages were 4/74d., it
looks as though working men spent between 10% and 20%
of their incomes on accommodation. Chadwick’s report of 1842
shows this to have been the case. West of the Pennines, rents
lay between an eighth and a quarter of income, the fraction
diminishing higher up the income bracket; in one place the
ratio reached a third. In Leeds, ‘‘The rates and rent of a
house... absorb. . . perhaps a fifth or sixth upon the average
wages of all classes of artisans, and labourers of all descrip- _
tions.”

** Ibid., 358, 393-94.

* LOtd. 360- 61, 246-47; R. Com. Large Towns (1844), It, 303 C.. 'S. os ‘‘Homes
and Habits”’ , in Early Victorian England, ed. G. M. Young (1934), I, 126 ff.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS T9Q5

About one-twentieth of a workman’s earnings were swallowed
up in rent in 1790 and between a tenth and a fifth fifty years
later. This meant that before the war, a day labourer normally
had at least 8/6d. a week to spend on other things and a skilled
craftsman 14/3d. to 17/3d. By comparison in 1839, an Irish
weaver, a labourer, or a woolcomber had at least g/- left; a
dyer, woolsorter and bricklayer between 13/- and 15/-; and
a clothdrawer, mechanic and millwright, 20/- to 22/-. Did
the remaining four-fifths to nine-tenths of income in 1839 buy
as much of other things as the remaining nineteen-twentieths
in 1790?

Humphrey Boyle estimated £1. os. 3d. a week to be “‘the
least possible sum for which a man, his wife and three children
can obtain a sufficiency of food, clothing and other necessaries’’
in 1832.°* As a footnote, he added:

If, upon the most strict enquiry, no material alteration can be
made in the detailed estimate of the necessary weekly expenditure
of five persons, I conceive that a case will be made out that the
average earnings of workmen are not sufficient for the proper
support of their families; ....
Six years later only a quarter of the adult males in the town
earned this sum. Without the wages of wives and offspring,
the majority would not have had sufficient to support their
families even in this austere way. For those with less, it is
not difficult to imagine the priority of sacrifices — clothing,
schooling, furniture, household utensils and maintenance. By
concentrating simply on the quantities of food, drink and fuel
listed by Boyle, which cost 62% of his estimated weekly out-
lay, how did the working man manage in 1832 compared with
his forebear in 1790?

In his calculation, Boyle naturally used local retail prices.
We have to rely on wholesale market prices for goods that
- were imported and local wholesale market prices for domestic
| products.°? These wholesale prices of unprocessed foodstuffs
.in transit in the 1830s are approximately half Boyle’s retail
| prices. It is possible, however, to obtain wholesale prices for
| the early 1790s and early 1830s covering three-quarters of

| ° This document is printed as an Appendix. I wish to thank Mr D. H. Boyle
of Leeds for granting me access to his ancestor’s papers.

| * The following paragraph is based on Middleton Colliery Records: 1762-1871;

|“The Diary of Joseph Rogerson, 1808-1814’’ printed in W. B. Crump, ‘‘The Leeds

Woollen Industry’”’, Thovesby Society Publications, XXXII (1931); John Aikin,

| A Description of the Country from thirty to forty miles round Manchester [1795];

| Leeds Mercury, 1790-92, 1830-32.

196 MISCELLANY

Boyle’s outlay on food. This bundle of food cost 5/7d. in the
early 1830s and 5/6é4d. forty years earlier. According to this
crude calculation, labourers and handicraft workers in the
1830s were no worse off, and perhaps slightly better off than
their counterparts before the French wars. They could afford
the same kind of cottage, the same amount of food, and per-
haps a little extra for clothes or household goods in the 1830s,
provided that at both times they had employment-and a bad
harvest did not thrust cereal prices sky-high. By comparison
the more highly paid artisans were probably much better off
in the 1830s. After buying their food, they had a larger margin
over for clothes and household utensils which became consider-
ably cheaper after the war, and they could afford to buy new
goods and services. To express this change in a different way:
for two-fifths of the working men at the bottom end of the
income scale, the rise in money wages between 1790 and 1830
was almost swallowed up by higher rents; and the remainder,
a growing proportion of the labour force, did not gain as much
as they might have done from higher wages, had rents not
doubled or trebled in the intervening years.

VI

My object in this paper has not been to whitewash working
class housing conditions during the first forty years of the
nineteenth century. By present day standards, even by the
standards of the later nineteenth cntury, they were deplorable.
The issue under discussion was whether or not housing got
worse in a quantitative or in a qualitative sense between 1780
and 1840. In the case of Leeds, the evidence suggests that this.
did not happen despite the fact that during this period the
whole character of the town changed. In the 1770s Leeds was
a mercantile town with seventeen thousand inhabitants. For
every superior house there were then 1.3 cheap dwellings.
occupied by artisans and craftsmen. By the 1840s Leeds had
sprouted a forest of factory chimneys and contained eighty
thousand people. Furthermore the town had a new group, a
proletariat without an accepted role or place in its society. For
every ‘‘superior’’ house there were then four working class
cottages. Yet notwithstanding this transformation, overcrowd-
ing was not widespread and there was no evidence that new
cottages became smaller or were more malconstructed than
formerly.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS IQ7

Although Leeds was the sixth most populous town in the
country and the capital of the north-eastern part of England,
its experience in the sphere of housing might be considered
exceptional.*® That there was no general deterioration in hous-
ing could perhaps be attributed amongst other things to honest.
and energetic house-building or to the absence of physical and
legal barriers. It is possible, though unlikely, that builders in
Leeds were more scrupulous than builders elsewhere in the
country. But the second explanation is so negative as to raise
the question; what can be regarded as normal, the absence or
presence of limiting factors? It seems that within early
Victorian Leeds the worst spots were the result of abnormal
conditions. Remove the specifically unusual circumstances in
such cases and these places would have been no worse than
working class streets elsewhere in the town. The general prob-
lem, as distinct from the evils of particular places, concerned.
road-making, sanitation and cleansing — not housing.’’ The
need was for investment in social capital, in ‘‘unremunerative’’
undertakings. Recently Professor Galbraith pointed to the
difficulty of channelling resources in this direction in an
“affluent society’’.°* Much the same difficulty confronted
administrators in Leeds and elsewhere in the 1830s.

In varying degrees members of the Liberal Party in Leeds.
hoped to undertake substantial improvements after their sweep-
ing triumph in the 1836 elections for a New Corporation.°*®
Improvement Commissioners were criticised more strongly
than ever for spending money which they received from rated
property in all parts of the town on providing amenities and
services for the minority who dwelt in middle class streets.
In order to draw attention to conditions in working class.
districts, the Corporation set up a Statistical Committee under
Robert Baker to undertake a house-to-house survey of the
township. But the reformers’ expectations were soon dashed.
The Liberal party, united in opposition, fell apart in office.
And a reorganised aggressive Tory party made such progress
at the polls that in the three years after 1838, the Liberals.

°° John Marshall reported in Leeds Mercury, 14 January, 1826; Leeds was not
amongst the fifty towns issued with Special Questionnaires on account of their
high death rate by the R. Com. Large Towns (1844).

°7 See, for instance, W. Brown, Information Regarding Flax Spinning at Leeds:
(1827), 6.
J. K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society (1958).

°° See Leeds Corporation Minutes, 19 December, 1836, 3 May, 1837.

198 MISCELLANY

would have lost control of the Corporation had it not been for
their sheet-anchor of aldermanic seats. Prominent amongst the
issues brought to the fore in these elections was the ‘‘spend-
thrift’’ policy of the Liberal party. It was assailed for
‘‘Extravagence’’ before it had an opportunity to do anything
about improvements.*’® And whilst some medical practitioners
urged that steps should be taken to prevent further outbreaks
of epidemics, others in the faculty blamed working class habits
and advocated economy.*®’ People with means (many the
beneficiaries of recent economic change) and with a vote (about
a quarter of the adult male population — the same ratio as
““superior’’ houses), thus registered their opposition to expendi-
ture on social capital in working class districts.*°* Tories wanted
to make the ‘‘uncomplaining poor’’ — they had no voice in
the matter — pay for improvements in their own districts.*°°
Since the minority of first class citizens were not prepared and
could not be compelled to pay for improvements, Baker
adopted shock-tactics to persuade them that it was in their
long-run interests to do so. He failed. The necessary resources
and knowledge were already at hand, but a long time passed
before they could be used for improvement purposes. The
tribulations of working class people were in this respect due
more to a political failure on the part of the urban middle class
than to speculative builders or government fiscal policy.

*°° Leeds Mercury, 3 November, 1838, 12 October, 1839.

1 Teeds Mercury, 17 November, 1838; Leeds Intelligencer, 1 September, 1832,
“the attacks [of cholera] are made principally on the careless and profligate, and
few of the wealthy and respectable are subject to its influence’. Cf. Report of
the Leeds Board of Health, 1833, which attributes epidemics to lack of draining,
cleansing and ventilation.

12 Teeds Mercury, 3 November, 1838. Nearly sixteen thousand inhabitants of
the borough were entitled to vote in 1838, and just over half did so.

1S Teeds Mercury, 9 November, 1838. Under pressure to improve street light-
ing in the poorer quarters of the town, the Tory Improvement Commissioners
sought Parliamentary permission to rate property between £3. tos. and £5 that
had previously been exempt.

WORKING MEN’S COTTAGES IN LEEDS 199

APPENDIX
Humphrey Boyle’s Estimate of Living Costs in 1832'°*

Least possible sum per week for which a man, his wife, and three
children can obtain a sufficiency of food, clothing & other necessaries
=— Feby. 12th, 1832.

Ss. d. i Se ods
Rent 2/-, fuel 9d., candle 3d. 2 © BreOutcap ....< 14 64
Soap 3d., soda 1d. blue & Vegetables 1d. per day Z

7
starch 14d. 53 salt, pepper, mustard, vinegar 2
Sand, black lead, bees wax & c. 2 7 pts. beer 14d. 104
Whitewashing a cottage twice Water I
a year 4 Schooling for 2 children 6
t3st flour for bread — 2/ 6d. 2 6 Reading 2
ist flour for puddings — 2/8&d. st. 8 Wear & tear in beds, bedding,
Eggs 2d., yeast 14d. 34 brushes, pots, pans, & other
1z pints milk per day at rd. End household furniture 6
% stone oatmeal 2/ 2d. 64 Clothing: husband 1/2d., wife
I lb. treacle 34d., 14 lb. sugar 8d. £10
ate 7a. Ib. t 2 each child 4d. i ©
at ioz. tea at §d., 2 oz. coffee
14d. to}
5 lb. meat 6d. 2 6
14 6$ £i 0. 3

Besides the sum required for the fund which it is agreed every work-
man [ought] to lay in store for sickness and old age, I have set nothing
down for butter, not being certain whether it is essential to health,
although it is to be found in almost every cottage where the weekly
income is not more than half the amount I have stated as necessary
for the proper support of a family: tobacco, although it is in very
general use, I have omitted for the same reason; neither have I reckoned
anything for religious instruction, which is thought by great numbers
of the people as necessary to their happiness as is their daily bread:
something, therefore, ought to be allowed for it.

The above is not made out from my own knowledge of housekeeping
only; I have elicited from the most intelligent & economical of my
acquaintances their opinion upon the most weighty items of expendi-
ture, which, if correct, would have made the amount rather more
than is here set down. If, upon the most strict enquiry, no material
alteration can be made in the detailed estimate of the necessary
weekly expenditure of five persons, I conceive that a case will be
made out that the average earnings of workmen are not sufficient for
the proper support of their families; and will prove at the same time
that if greater economy was practised, if less was spent at the public
house, there would be a much greater degree of comfort in the work-
man’s cottage than is to be met with at present.

H. Bovyvte.

4 In family records of Boyle & Son, Leeds.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS
By J. SPRITTLES

Origin and motive

THE RAISING of money for charitable purposes was not new
to Leeds when it was proposed that the profits of the 1858
Musical Festival should go to the funds of the Leeds General
Infirmary. It is significant that the idea of holding a festival
of music in Leeds came from the Town Hall Committee respon-
sible for the preparations for the opening of the new Town
Hall. When the Festival Committee proposed that the profits
should go to the Infirmary, they were following the tradition
of other public-spirited benefactors such as John Harrison,
Josiah Jenkinson, John Thoresby and Mary Potter, who had
kept alive the spirit of charity in Leeds, so abundant before
the closing of the abbeys in 1535.

William Hey, the founder of the Infirmary, was born in
Pudsey in 1736 and apprenticed to William Dawson, a surgeon-
apothecary in Leeds. Part of his training had been at St
George’s Hospital, London, and this no doubt spurred him
to see a similar institution established in Leeds. His zeal for
religion, for he was an ardent Methodist, may have influenced
his desire to do good through the career in which his father
had placed him, as he was only thirty-one years of age when,
with other subscribers, he decided to establish a general Infirm-
ary in Leeds. The building which was opened in 1771, stood
in Infirmary Street on the site of the Yorkshire Bank. The
Infirmary had previously benefited from concerts held in Leeds,
and was later to receive many thousands of pounds from the
York and Leeds festivals.

Music of festival proportions came into being with the works
of Handel and Bach. Handel was born in Halle, in Saxony,
in 1685, and came to England in 1710 at the age of twenty-
five, becoming a naturalized Englishman in 1726, and it was
fortunate for music in England that he made his abode here.
Also born in 1685 was John Sebastian Bach, and both he and
Handel developed a technique in composition, writing works

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 201

which took three hours or more to perform, so that it became
possible for one work to occupy the whole of a morning or
evening concert. The Oratorios, /svael in Egypt and Saul were
composed in 1738 and Messiah was written in 1741 and first
performed in Dublin in 1742. From 1750 to 1759 when he
died, Handel gave Messiah annually for the benefit of the
Foundling Hospital, one of the many charities which claimed
his interest. Those performances brought £6,955 into the
treasury of that institution.

Bach wrote the Passion Music according to St Matthew and
that according to St John between 1724 and 1730 and his
masterpiece, Mass in B minor in 1738, considered by many
musicians to be the finest choral work ever written, and it is
certainly one of the most singable.

The symphony had also been formed by Haydn, who is
sometimes referred to as “‘the Father of the symphony’’. This
form of orchestral work was developed in due succession by
Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Vaughan Williams,
Sibelius and others, some symphonies being lengthy composi-
tions taking almost an hour or more to play. Thus a four days’
festival of music became possible with much variation in the
style of music to be performed.

York Festivals

The first York Festival held in the Minster in 1823 spread
over four days, from Tuesday, 23 September to Friday, 26
September. It opened with Handel’s Dettingen Te Deum, the
chorus consisting of ninety cantos (i.e. sopranos having the
leading melody), seventy altos, ninety tenors and one hundred
basses; these, with thirteen principal singers and two hundred
and fifty instrumentalists making a total of six hundred and
thirteen performers. There was a total attendance of 17,520
persons. The fees paid to the principal performers compared
with those of today are interesting. They were: Madame
Catalani, 600 guineas; Miss Paton, £200; Miss Stephens,
£200; Madame Caradori, £200; Mrs Knyvett, £100; Madame
Stockhausen, £100; and Mr Braham, £250. The total receipts
including those from two Balls were £14,623. 13s. 7d. After
expenses were paid the profits were given to the hospitals of
York, Leeds, Sheffield and Hull, each receiving about £1,800.
The same hospitals also benefited from the second and third
| festivals held at York in 1825 and 1828.

202 MISCELLANY

At the fourth Yorkshire Grand Musical Festival held in
York Minster in 1835, from Tuesday, 8 September to Friday,
II September, the programmes were varied and long. The
programme names the Patron as ‘“‘the King’s Most Excellent
Majesty’’ and the President, ‘‘His Grace the Lord Arch-
bishop of York’’. Other patrons included six dukes, two
marquesses, eight earls, besides viscounts, baronets, knights
and more than a hundred esquires of the county aristocracy.
It is recorded that the Festival was honoured by the presence
of the Duchess of Kent, the Princess Victoria and the élite of
Yorkshire. There was a “‘grand chorus’’ of ninety cantos,
seventy altos, ninety tenors and one hundred basses. The con-
ductors were Mr Knyvett and Dr.John Camidge and the choral
director Mr Matthew Camidge, with two hundred and sixty
instrumentalists, fifteen soloists and a chorus of three hundred
and fifty voices.

On Friday, 11 September, /srael in Egypt by Handel was
performed, when the item ‘‘The Lord is a man of war’’ was
sung as scored by Handel as a duet for two male singers: today,
this exhilarating duet is sung by the first and second basses
of the chorus, providing a thrill for singers and listeners alike,
especially if about seventy lusty Yorkshire voices of festival
standard are singing. The Infirmary at Leeds received the sum
of £500. Such was the pattern of the festival which became
the prototype of those to be held at Leeds.

Concerts in the E1ghteenth Century

Whilst it is true that Leeds Musical Festivals did not begin
until 1858, they were foreshadowed in the concerts performed
in Leeds long before the Festivals were established.

From about the middle of the eighteenth century’ concerts
were becoming popular, and in 1763 twelve concerts were
given in the [old] Assembly Rooms in Kirkgate commencing
in October and continuing fortnightly until April. In October
1766 entertainment was given for the benefit of the poor in
Mr Harrison’s hospital. In 1768 Messiah was given in the [old]
Assembly Rooms on g September and was repeated fortnightly,
eighteen performances being given. It was during the erection
of the General Infirmary in 1769 that the patrons of music

1 Miss Emily Hargreaves gives a full account of music in Leeds during the
eighteenth century in Thoresby Society Publications, XXVIII.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS Oe

in Leeds felt that charity might have a part in the scheme of
music, and on 12 and 13 October oratorios were given in
Holy Trinity Church where an organ was erected for the pur-
pose, and performances of Judas Maccabeus and Messiah by
Handel were given, to the “‘satisfaction of very polite and
crowded audiences’’. The usual Ball followed, and the sum of
£220 was collected for the Infirmary.

Again in 1784 sacred music from the works of Handel was
performed in Holy Trinity Church. The concerts took place
in the mornings, the first on Wednesday, 24 November which
was divided into three parts: Part I: Overture from Esther
and the Dettingen Te Deum, the latter having been written
for the occasion of national thanksgiving after the victory of
Dettingen, June 1743, when George II was in command. Part
II: Overture Tamerlane with the ‘“‘Dead March’’ in Saul,
Funeral Anthem and the Gloria Pain. Part III: ‘‘Jehovah
Crowned’’ (Esther); ‘“Gird on thy sword’’ (Saul); anthem,
O sing unto the Lord, ‘‘The Lord shall reign’’ (/srael in
Egypt); and the Coronation anthem, Zadok the Pnest. The
second morning, Thursday, 25 November, Parts I and II of
Samson were sung, and on the third morning, Friday, 26
November, Messiah. There was a performance of Acis and
Galatea (a serenata) in the Theatre on the evening of 24 Novem-
ber, the day the festival opened. The subscription to the five
performances was one guinea, single tickets 7/-. This festival
of choral and instrumental music was surely the forerunnes of
our Musical Festivals, and to make the chorus as full as possible
the double bassoon, trombone and double drum, introduced
at the Westminster Abbey Handel Commemoration Festival,
were engaged. It was requested that in order to accommodate
as many persons as possible ‘‘if ladies who attend come in hoops
(which it is to be hoped they will not) they may be as small as
possible’.

According to the records of the Leeds Infirmary, a festival
of music was attempted in 1790, but the Festival Committee
had a sorry story to tell when meeting the Infirmary Board,
as the festival had been a failure. At the new Assembly Rooms
in 1793, and the Music Hall in 1795, concerts were given for
the benefit of the Infirmary, the profits amounting to only
£2. 8s. 3d. and £3. 18s. respectively.

204 MISCELLANY

First Musical Festival 1858

Before 1858 Leeds was not a festival town, as it had not
a hall where music of festival proportions could be performed.
Our largest hall, which held 800 people was the old Music Hall
in Albion Street, erected in 1792 (now Harrison, Gibson Ltd).
In Birmingham, St Philip’s Church (now the Cathedral) had
been used for festival music before the Town Hall was built
in 1834, but it would have been impossible to perform works
of festival standard in the old parish church of Leeds, since
a stone screen across the nave cut the church in half. When
the present church was built in 1841, provision was made for
a congregation of two thousand people, but many of the seats
are under the gallery, especially on the north side, which thus
diminishes vocal sound and almost obliterates a view of the
singers.

Our very fine Town Hall had been built to the designs of
Cuthbert Broderick at a cost of over £100,000. The con-
tractors had gone bankrupt and there had been much disruption
in the building work, the designs having been modified since
the original conception, but they included a hall — to be named
the Victoria Hall — eminently suited for the performance of
music of festival standard. To the credit of the Leeds Corpora-
tion of 1858 a Musical Festival was suggested as part of the
grand scheme for the opening ceremonies of the new Town
Hall by Queen Victoria.

The Mayor was Alderman Peter Fairbairn, and he con-
vened a meeting to be held in the Old Court House in Park
Row, inviting the public to attend so that the proposed Festival
could be fully discussed. This took place on rr March, 1858,
and the following resolution was passed:

“That, as the Town Hall Committee are of opinion that it is
desirable the opening of the Town Hall should be celebrated by the
holding of a Musical Festival, this meeting approves of such a

course, and will cordially unite with the Town Hall Committee
in carrying out the proposed measure in an efficient manner.’’

Seventeen townsmen were elected to act with seventeen mem-
bers of the Town Council to form a Festival Committee.

Six months in which to arrange a Festival of Music worthy
of the occasion, was indeed a bold venture and an undertaking
of some magnitude, but serving on the committee were many
good business men, capable of getting on with the work, and

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 205

in addition many were good amateur musicians filled with
enthusiasm for the project; Alderman James Kitson was pre-
siding chairman, and no time was lost in getting down to
business.

The names of two conductors were proposed, one, Michael
Costa, who was highly regarded as a conductor and was con-
sidered most desirable by some for the success of the Leeds
Festival. The other was Dr Sterndale Bennett, Professor of
Music at Cambridge and a man with acknowledged talent and
a Yorkshireman. County blood counted for much when the
two names were put to the vote and the baton was offered to
Dr Bennett, and the sum of 200 guineas offered for his ser-
vices, which included such visits to Leeds as might be necessary.
(The baton he used is now the property of the Thoresby
Society.)

Dr Bennett was requested to favour the Committee with one
of his own compositions for production at one of the evening
concerts and the May Queen was the work produced. Bennett
was a most meticulous writer, his compositions for the piano-
forte being both academic and sound in principle. His songs
require both vocal and pianistic skill and only artistes of first
class training can do justice to the singing or accompanying,
as both song and accompaniment are well and truly wed. So
on the evening of Wednesday, 8 September, 1858, May Queen
was given its first performance at the first Leeds Musical
Festival under the baton of the composer and within the new
Town Hall. But there had been a morning performance and
the work performed was Elijah by Mendelssohn.

Elijah had been composed for the Birmingham Musical
Festival, the Festival Committee having requested Mendelssohn
in June 1845 to provide a new oratorio, or other music for the
occasion. The following year was very hot and Mendelssohn
was subject to exhaustion with the close application he gave
to his work, but he finished it and the first performance of
Elijah took place in the Town Hall in Birmingham, 26 August,
1846. Mendelssohn conducted. He was 37 years old at the
time. Six further performances were conducted by him, four
being given in Exeter Hall, London, in April 1847, one in
Manchester and another in Birmingham. Mendelssohn died on
4 November, 1847, aged 38 years, only sixteen months after
conducting the first performance.

206 MISCELLANY

In addition to May Queen given at the first evening perform-
ance, there were part-songs, violin solos, a piano concerto by
Mendelssohn and a symphony by Mozart. Two famous singers
who took part were Clara Novello and Sims Reeves. The pro-
grammes were very long.

On the Thursday morning, the principal works given were
Rossini’s Stabat Mater, and The Mount of Olives by Beethoven.
An organ Sonata by William Spark was played on the new
organ by the composer. The organ, 50 feet high, 47 feet in
width, and weighing nearly 70 tons, had over 6,000 pipes and
was exceeded only by those of York Minster which had over
8,000 pipes, and St George’s, Liverpool, also having 8,000
pipes, and was claimed to be one of the largest in Europe.
Five hydraulic engines supplied the power equivalent to 8
horse power, capable of supplying 50 cubic feet of air per
second, if necessary. It has four manuals. A resolution appears
in the Festival Minute book of 31 July, 1858, ‘‘That in future
announcements of the Festival the large organ be mentioned
in a prominent manner’’. Thus the organ was opened at the
Festival. It was built by Messrs Gray and Davidson of London;
the case was made by Messrs Thorpe & Atkinson of Leeds, and
the ornaments carved in wood by Mr Matthews, also of Leeds.

The Orchestra

This consisted of the most celebrated performers in the
Metropolis together with a few artistes of repute in the West
Riding. Ninety-six players were engaged and the usual twenty
first, and eighteen second, violins had place; the twelve viola
players (described as ‘‘tenors’’) and the twelve violoncellos
and twelve double basses made a total of seventy-four strings.
The remainder were — eight woodwind, ten brass, two drums
and a harp. The timpani are not mentioned.

The Chorus

The chorus-master appointed to train the chorus was R. 5.
Burton, the organist of Leeds Parish Church, and he and the
sub-committee were given the task of selecting the singers.

There were many applicants, and two hundred and forty-
five were selected to sing, eighty of whom were resident in
Leeds. It was truly a West Riding chorus, the singers being
recruited from Heckmondwike, Halifax, Batley, Sheffield,

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 207

Barnsley, Huddersfield, Lockwood, Ossett, Bradford, Holm-
firth, Dewsbury, Kirkburton, Cleckheaton, Wakefield, Bingley
and elsewhere. But eighty Leeds singers — this caused trouble
as there were pupils of professional musicians who were fully
convinced of their own singing ability and were not chosen.
Eventually each aspirant was sent the following note: ‘‘The
Committee invite you to a trial of your voice and reading
ability on (date), when the committee will be enabled to judge
whether you ought to be engaged.’’ In most cases this pre-
vented further trouble,

The chorus consisted of sopranos, contraltos, altos (forty-
three in number), tenors and basses. Where could forty-three
altos or counter-tenors be found today? As the chorus was
not chosen until 21 May, there could only be three full months
in which to rehearse, as the first day of the festival was
8 September.

Some of the singers may have known Elijah but many would
not. Sterndale Bennett’s May Queen they could not have
known previously, as it was written for that festival; there
were part-songs, Rossini’s Stabat Mater and Beethoven’s
Mount of Olives,“ which many (probably most) were singing
for the first time, and selections from Bach’s St Matthew’s
Passion, Haydn’s Seasons, Spring and Summer, and Handel’s
Israel in Egypt. On Saturday morning (the fourth day)
Messiah was sung.

A People’s Festival concert was given on the Saturday
evening, the prices being such as would afford an opportunity
to all classes of seeing the noble Town Hall, as well as listen-
ing to a choice selection of music. So great was the rush for
admittance that 2,283 persons had passed the vestibule in
twenty minutes for the (back of the hall) promenade; 1,320
| persons were admitted to the seats, 100 into the balcony and
200 to the orchestra — altogether 4,000 people were present.

The total receipts for the People’s Concert were £279 3s., and,
| after deducting expenses, a sum of £200 was given to the
_ Leeds Infirmary.
| The Queen, accompanied by the Prince Consort, had opened
| the Town Hall on 7 September, the day before the festival.
| After the Festival of Music there was a Ball which was attended
| by six hundred people.

Sung at Drury Lane Theatre, London, 27 February, 1814, being new to this
country.

208 MISCELLANY

A resolution worded ‘‘That no person be admitted to the
evening concerts except in full evening dress’’ was prom-
ulgated. A few intending purchasers of tickets demurred, and
though not rescinded, the resolution was not enforced.

For the personal comfort of the first class ticket-holders two
inches extra spacing was allowed in the seating arrangements;
the dimensions being: first seats, 28 in. x 174 in., second
seats,.26 in. x 174 in.

Patrons were many, but it was thought proper to exclude
the clergy, and it was resolved ‘‘That all Ministers of religion
resident in the Borough, be omitted from the list of patrons’’.
This was termed “‘an insult to religion’’ and it certainly gave
offence to the clergy. It was rescinded, and much to the satis-
faction of both Anglicans and Dissenters, Dr Hook the Vicar
of Leeds, and the Rev. H. R. Reynolds, a Congregational
minister, were admitted to the list of patrons.

The London Times reported:

““. . . the people of Leeds seem fairly astonished at their own
choral resources, thus strengthened and developed by association
with the Philharmonic band of instrumentalists under the guidance
of their able conductor. The ‘Hailstone’ chorus was nothing short
of prodigious, and in obedience to an overwhelming demand
expressed in reiterated volleys of applause, it was repeated. Such
vigorous, powerful and full-toned voices as these Yorkshire

choristers possess, it rejoices the heart of the jaded Londoner to
hear. The trebles and basses especially, are unrivalled anywhere.’’

The Leeds Intelligencer reported thus:

‘‘The visitors gaze in silent wonder as the tremendous basses
pour out their mighty voice, as the trebles ring clearly a pro-
longed note so high that it seems to the unsophisticated impossible
to be reached, as the sweet altos and pure tenors send forth their
beautiful melodies with a fullness and richness of tone that per-
fectly enchant the admiring listener.’’

The price of serial tickets for the seven performances was
44. 4s., but if privilege were sought for the Inauguration Cere-
mony, £5. 5s. [he programmes were sold for the benefit of
the Infirmary at the price of sixpence. After all expenses were
paid, there was a balance of £2,000 which was given to the
Leeds General Infirmary, and it was handed over with much
ceremonial, the Mayor and the Festival organizers proceed-
ing from the committee room in Greek Street to the board room
of the Infirmary.

Alderman Peter Fairbairn was now Sir Peter Fairbairn,

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 209

having received the accolade at the opening of the Town Hall.
Woodsley Hall was his home, which he vacated for the use
of the Queen and the Royal party.

After receiving the gift, the chairman of the Infirmary re-
marked how the gift had exceeded the donation of £1,800
from the first York Festival.

A Dinner at which the Leeds Musical Festival Committee
attended was held at Fleischmann’s Hotel on 13 December.
(The Scarbrough Hotel occupies the site.) Future festivals
were discussed and it was unanimously agreed that the next
musical festival should be held in 1861.

The Festival of 1858 had been a wonderful event for Leeds
and in every way a huge success. It was described as a scene
of one of the most delightful musical festivals of this musical
age and it was agreed that triennial Musical Festivals should
be established.

Festival proposed in 1861

In the early months of 1861 the promoters of the 1858
Festival were busying themselves with plans for another
festival, but ‘‘the best laid schemes 0’ mice an’ men Gang aft
a-gley’’. They thought of engaging Dr Sterndale Bennett’ as
conductor, but they had not reckoned on the troubles which
can arise between two rival societies. Leeds had then two
choral societies and there was much contention between them,
each being jealous for the reputation of its own conductor.
The Leeds Choral Society was conducted by R. S. Burton
and the Leeds Madrigal and Motet Society by William Spark.
The fusion of the two societies was suggested, the new society
to be named the Leeds Festival Choral Society. The suggestion
that R. S. Burton be conductor and Wm. Spark organist and

| pianist raised a storm of protest from the members of the society

conducted by Mr Spark, who objected to their chorus-master

| being consigned to the position of organist and pianist. That
| the two men should be joint conductors was demanded by the
| Madrigal and Motet Society, and ultimately it was obvious
| that the amalgamation of the two societies was not feasible.

The Leeds Madrigal and Motet Society (1850) was the older

| of the two, having been in existence ten years, with most

5’ Sir William Sterndale Bennett was born in Sheffield 13 April, 1816, and died

| in London 1 February, 1875. He was buried in Westminster Abbey.

210 MISCELLANY

successful results. The Society had a membership of a hundred
and fifty singers (many of solo standard), had performed many
works of the great masters, and could provide a nucleus for
a Festival Chorus. If the two societies were amalgamated the
chorus of the festival could be a Leeds body and there would
be no reason to invite singers from adjacent towns. Mr Burton
had declined to have anything to do with the chorus, unless
he could have the entire choosing and control of that body,
and the chorus committee would not give up their authority,
so between the two factions there was a deadlock.

The Corporation of Leeds had spent more than £100,000
upon its Town Hall, the Victoria Hall having been erected.
and planned so that music could have premier place: £5,000:
had been spent on an organ, and the hope of a second festival
was fading. Finally, the Committee relinquished its efforts to
form a compromise, the idea of a festival in 1861 was
abandoned, and no further effort towards planning a festival
took place until 1874. This had its effect upon the charities.
of Leeds as the profits which might have been taken were lost,
and, assuming that four festivals had taken place, the
hospitals of Leeds would have benefited to the amount of
almost £8,000. Festivals always bring business into the town,
and this had also been lost owing in the main to the obstinacy
of a few people.

Second Festival 1874

It was in 1874 that an effort was made to establish another
Musical Festival. The memory of the 1861 fiasco had faded,
and attention was again focussed upon the glories of a festival
in 1874.

Alderman Henry Rowland Marsden was the Mayor of Leeds
and one of the best respected men in the town. He was willing
to do his utmost to make his Mayoral year a Festival year
and invited (by letter) many of the principal inhabitants of
the borough to attend a meeting on 12 March to consider a
proposal to organize a Grand Musical Festival during that

ear.

‘‘The Musical Festivals in many provincial cities and towns,
possessing far less resources than Leeds, have been productive
of great musical and pecuniary results, benefiting alike the
musical connection and the charities of their respective local-
ities.” So wrote the Mayor.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 211

The meeting resolved that it was desirable to hold a musical
festival during the ensuing year. A Committee was formed and
a guarantee fund of £5,000 was established within a fortnight
of its inception. Professional musicians were excluded from
the management and from the list of guarantors. The com-
mittee had planted their feet firmly and would tolerate no
nonsense or bickering.

The next step was to choose a conductor, and it was agreed
to invite terms from three famous musicians, namely Sir
Michael Costa, Joseph Barnby and Charles Hallé. Sir Michael
Costa, who insisted that he be interviewed in London, ‘“The
mountain must go to Mohammed’’, was appointed, his terms
being 300 guineas and expenses. He expressed the hope that
any new work written for the festival should be conducted by
the composer. Various composers were approached for new
works, Charles Gounod being one: he was willing to offer an
oratorio, which he termed ‘‘the work of my life’’, for the sum
of £4,000. The offer was not accepted. Eight years later, an
oratorio, The Redemption, also described as the work of his
life, was accepted by the Birmingham Festival Committee for
which Gounod received the sum demanded at Leeds.

A work written by Henry Smart was accepted, namely The
Bride of Dunkerron which at the festival was a comparative
failure, Costa vowing never again to conduct the work of a
living composer, [The Committee decided to omit Messiah and
Elijah from the programme, but after pressure compromised
and agreed to give Messiah and substitute St Paul for Elijah.
Finally the programme for the four days was complete and
at the opening morning concert, Wednesday, 14 October, 1874,
St Paul by Mendelssohn was sung, the concert on the same
evening being composed of miscellaneous items.

Thursday morning was given to an organ work of Handel
{played by Dr Spark), and items from /svael in Egypt; in the
second half the Hymn of Praise (Lobgesang) by Mendelssohn
' was sung; on Thursday night, The Bride of Dunkerron and
miscellaneous items, and on Friday morning, St John the
| Baptist, by G. A. Macfarren, and Rossini’s Stabat Mater; on
| Friday evening, Paradise and the Pen, by Schumann, and in
| the second half, miscellaneous items. On Saturday morning,
| Messiah was sung, with six soloists, three men and three
women; and lastly, at the People’s Festival Concert on Satur-

212 MISCELLANY

day evening, there was a varied selection of choruses, duets,
clarionet solo, pianoforte solos, organ solos, songs, duets for
two pianos, finishing with the Hallelujah Chorus.

R. S. Burton had been asked to hold the office of chorus-
master, but differences again arose, and he refused to submit
to the requirements of the Committee, so James Broughton
was invited to become chorus-master, a position he held up to
the festival of 1883. Burton resigned his position as organist
of the Parish Church in 1880, The chorus members who re-
quired payment were offered £2. Ios. per male singer, but
#3 was demanded, Finally, £2. 15s. was agreed and the
trouble was temporarily ended. The singing was reported by
The Times thus: |

“Bristol was fine, London finer still, that at Leeds it is simple
truth to add, finest of all. The Yorkshire choristers beat, any
other choristers we know: such a splendid body of vocal sound

as comes from the united throats of these West Riding singers
can be matched nowhere else.’’

The results financially were quite satisfactory; in addition
to the sale of tickets, a collection was taken at the four morn-
ing performances. Lord Dartmouth gave £50 on the first
morning and a chorus member gave £3, and the total for that
morning was £560. 18s. 4d.; for Thursday morning, £14.
Tis. 6d.; Friday, £31. 15s. 3d.; Saturday, £44. 5s. 3d. After
all expenses had been paid there was a profit of just more than
£1,000, and £500 was given to the Leeds General Infirmary,
£250 to the Leeds Dispensary, £125 to the Hospital for Women
and Children, and £125 to the House of Recovery. A balance
of £12. 15s. od. remained.

An unsuccessful effort was made to keep the Festival Chorus
intact. It was acknowledged that band and principals were
attainable in any part of the country, but a chorus of York-
shire voices can only be obtained in Yorkshire. So ended the
Festival of 1874, the second of its kind in Leeds.

Third Festival 1877

The third Musical Festival took place about the third week
in the September of 1877.

The Town Hall platform had been reduced from 7 feet to
5 feet in height and accommodation made for I50 extra per-
formers.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS ais

A sub-committee was formed so that composers could be
approached and new works commissioned. Wagner did not
reply, Gounod declined with thanks, Rubinstein regretted the
festival being too far ahead, Macfarren would be pleased if
his work Joseph could be performed, but with the proviso
that Charles Santley be engaged for the baritone solo; Sir
Michael Costa was working on a composition on the same sub-
ject as Macfarren, namely Joseph; Henry Smart was engaged
upon a libretto based on Spenser’s Faerie Queen, which he was
to name Una.

Costa was appointed conductor but asked that the festival
should take place as late as possible, as if it were too early
it would interfere with his baths in Germany. He recommended
that the chorus should be well balanced. The contraltos, altos
and tenors in 1874 were not of the force of the magnificent
sopranos and basses. He asked that Bach’s Magnificat in D
should be omitted from the programme, but the Committee
held firm and the work was given. Madame Albani was engaged
to sing, at a fee of 550 guineas, of which she promised to give
50 guineas toward the fund for the hospitals.

The performance of Elijah opened the Festival on Wednes-
day morning, 19 September, and on the same evening a mis-
cellaneous concert was given and another of a similar character
on Thursday morning, the short work Walpurgis Night by
Mendelssohn being included; on Thursday evening: Handel’s
Solomon; on Friday morning: Macfarren’s oratorio Joseph
composed expressly for the festival and conducted by the
composer; on Friday evening: miscellaneous items; on Satur-
day morning: Bach’s Magnificat in D, Mozart’s Requiem Mass
and Beethoven’s Mount of Olives. On Saturday evening, the
People’s Festival Concert, miscellaneous items were given.
Once more the festival had been in general a great success,

The Times reported the chorus to be ‘‘the finest in Great
Britain and it may be added without much fear of contradic-
‘tion the finest in Europe.’’ The Athenaeum mentioned the
choral works “‘which will dwell in the memory as choral
triumphs hitherto unapproached’’; 11,784 people attended the
festival, 1,700 more than in 1874, but it was observed that the
|increase was in the second seats with a decrease in the first
seats.

Financially the festival was a success and from the profits

—— = _

214 MISCELLANY

#,400 went to the Leeds General Infirmary, £200 to the Leeds
Dispensary, #100 to the Hospital for Women and Children,
#100 to the House of Recovery.

Sir Michael Costa had been the guest of Mr J. W. Atkinson,
and during dinner one evening referred to Birmingham and
how they did things there, suggesting that Leeds should do
likewise, saying ‘‘the selection of works, the selection of
singers and all engagements are in the hands of the Chairman
and myself, and everything goes on all right. Why do you
not do as they?’’ Dr Spark replied, “‘Because Yorkshiremen
wom t permit at’ ’ .

Fourth Festival 18S0

Triennial Festivals seemed to be firmly established, when in
1880 the fourth Musical Festival took place, commencing on
Wednesday, 13th October, for four days. Sir Michael Costa,
who had conducted the two previous festivals, had so offended
the Committee by his haughty, high-handed manner that the
organizers decided to approach Arthur Sullivan and Charles
Hallé; the supporters of Costa asked for a vote, which resulted
thus:

Costa 7

Sullivan , 6

Hallé : 3
2nd vote

Costa ' 8

Sullivan 6

Costa was asked to conduct this festival but he replied in a
curt letter saying, that the Committee was too late in asking
him. Hallé would not consent to the Festival Committee hav-
ing a hand in selecting the band, so negotiations with him
ceased.

Arthur Sullivan was then asked to be conductor at a fee
of £200 as conductor and £100 for the privilege of allowing
Leeds Chorus to produce his new oratorio David and Jonathan.

Sullivan said that he appreciated the honour and was very
happy to accept. He wrote his acceptance from New York in
a letter dated 28 January, 1880. He had mentioned terms of
engagement which included his selection of the band and of
solo artistes, the programme being satisfactory to himself as

a

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 235

well as to the Committee. He asked for details to be sent him
as he was not returning to England until the end of April.
Sullivan was asking for the same privilege as that which the
Committee had refused to Hallé, but the appointment was
generally popular. Many were delighted that an Englishman
had been selected to conduct an English Festival, and one
admirer of Pinafore wrote:
““We might have had a Russian, a French, or Turk, or Prussian
Or else I-ta-li-an

But in spite of all temptations to go to other nations
We select an Englishman.’’

Sullivan was only 28 years old, but his music, being melodic
in style, was very popular and he was regarded as a musician
of great ability and a composer with a future.

The Festival of 1880 opened with a performance of Elijah
and the following morning the ninth (Choral) Symphony by
Beethoven was performed. This work takes about sixty-seven
minutes to perform, the last twenty minutes being scored for
chorus, orchestra and soloists; it is a gruelling work, Beethoven
having no mercy on the voice.

Sullivan had written The Martyr of Antioch for this festival
and it was performed on the Friday morning. Bennett’s May
Queen written for the 1858 Festival was again performed, also
Handel’s Samson, the Mass in C by Beethoven, and many
miscellaneous items were given. On the afternoon of Friday
and Saturday, organ recitals were given by Dr Spark.
““Festival ticket-holders for the day were admitted free’’. The
popular ‘“‘People’s Festival Concert’’ was given on the Satur-
day night, the programme consisting of a variety of musical
items, finishing with Let the Celestial concerts all unite from
Handel’s Samson; thirty-four altos were included in the chorus
of three hundred singers, an astounding feature.

A point of interest to Leeds Festival members and members
-of the Leeds Philharmonic Society is that rehearsals in 1880,
-and probably before that date, took place in the Philosophical
| Hall. Both the Festival Chorus and the Society still rehearse
/in the same hall, without doubt the finest rehearsal hall in the
city for choral singing, but soon to be demolished.

| Sullivan wanted more instrumentalists to increase the
| orchestra of a hundred and eleven performers by twenty-two
}more players, but the Committee felt that the space of the

H

216 MISCELLANY

orchestra in the Town Hall was too small to permit the band
being increased, and the payment of instrumentalists had to
be considered. Sullivan, a man of good sense, submitted to
the Committee.

It was at this festival that the charge of 2/6d. was made
for persons wishing to attend the final rehearsals, each singer
having a ticket given for a friend. The selling of nine hundred
tickets increased Festival funds by over £100.

It became known that the Duke of Edinburgh had expressed
his intention of attending the Leeds Festival, and he agreed
to accept the office of President.

The Committee, in the preface to the book of words issued
for this 1880 Festival, reminded patrons of their endeavour
to adhere to the original principles of the 1858 Festival:

(1) The promotion of the cause of music of the highest
character, and the most efficient rendering of such music.

(2) The encouragement of original, and chiefly English,
composition.

(3) The assistance, by these means, of charitable institutions
which have a special claim on the general public.

Included in the programme were Spohr’s Last Judgment
and (for the final chorus at the Festival) the ‘‘Gloria’’ from
Utrecht Jubilate by Handel, which had opened the Yorkshire
Festival in York Minster in 1825.

The performance of Beethoven’s ninth Symphony had been
a great success, The Times critic writing,

ce

. and what is Beethoven’s or any other music, without
reverberations of the notes in the singer’s breast? As to sonorous
effects, the splendid A of the soprani — the stumbling block of
many choirs — will not soon be forgotten. It was like the tone
of some gigantic instrument, so full and sustained was the sound.’’

The chorus-master, James Broughton, had handed over to
Sullivan a highly-trained and efficient choir of three hundred
and six voices: seventy-five sopranos, forty-one contraltos,
thirty-four altos, seventy-eight tenors and seventy-eight basses.

13,000 persons had attended the festival and a profit of
over £2,000 was made. The Leeds General Infirmary was
handed £1,000, the Public Dispensary £500, the Leeds Fever
Hospital £250, and the Hospital for Women and Children
£250. A balance of £329. os. 10d. was carried over for invest-

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 2477

ment, After the festival Sullivan sent a cheque for £25 as a
contribution to the charities which would benefit by the festival.

Sullivan was invited to be conductor of the 1883 Festival,
but he complained about the pitch of the organ being too low
for the orchestra, the woodwind players at the 1880 Festival
having had to under-blow to keep in tune. He asked if it could
be remedied by raising to the ‘‘Broadwood Philharmonic
pitch’’. The Corporation Committee would not consent to cut
down the pipes, as they were told that the ‘‘right pitch’’ was
a matter of opinion, and that the pipes of Birmingham Town
Hall organ, after having been cut down to raise the pitch,
were restored to their original pitch; hence no further action
was taken.

Whilst no Festival Chorus had remained intact after any
of the festivals, the Leeds Philharmonic Society had been
founded in 1870 and a nucleus of singers, well trained by
rehearsing during seven months of the year, could be drawn
upon for future festivals.

There was also a desire to perform certain works of the
ereat composers as yet unattempted.

For the benefit of smokers and others, a promenade on the
two entrance sides of the Town Hall was made, the entire
pavement covered by awning, thus converting the pavements
into promenades on which were placed shrubs and flowers,
with brilliant illuminations at night. The promenaders would
stroll along the carpets laid for the purpose and as in the words
of the Dream of Gerontius, wouid “‘use well the interval’’.

Fifth Festival 1883

The 1883 Festival opened on Wednesday morning, Io
October with the oratorio Elijah, the principal soloists being
Madame Valleria, Miss Annie Marriott, Madame Patey, Mr
Maas and Mr Santley. The evening concert commenced with
a new work, Gray’s Elegy, a cantata, composed by Alfred
Cellier who conducted the work. The organist was Walter
Parratt. Beethoven’s second Symphony followed, after which
a few small items, finishing with the overture to The Magic
Flute, completed the programme. On Thursday morning, the
first half was occupied by the first performance in England
| of a new work composed by Joachim Raff, The End of the
World, an oratorio. The second part was entirely Handelian,

218 MISCELLANY

the chorus singing selections from various works, with recita-
tives and airs by soloists.

Thursday evening opened with The Lord is King, written
for this festival and conducted by Joseph Barnby, then Glory,
honour, praise by Mozart, Thou Guide of Israel by Bach (the
first performance in this country), and after the interval
Rossini’s Stabat Mater. On Friday morning another new work
written for the festival, King David by G. A. Macfarren, was
heard. On Friday evening, The Crusaders by Niels Gade
occupied the first half, miscellaneous items filling the second
part, finishing with the ‘“March and Chorus’’ from Tannhduser
by Wagner. On Saturday morning the Mass in D by Beethoven
and the Hymn of Praise by Mendelssohn constituted the pro-
gramme, The People’s Festival Concert on the Saturday even-
ing consisted of miscellaneous items, some of the choruses and
solos being selected from the works given during the festival.
The Mass in D was declared the finest performance yet heard
in this country. James Broughton was chorus-master and
Alfred Broughton the chorus pianist; the organists were Dr
William Spark and Walter Parratt.

From the profits, Leeds General Infirmary received £1,050,
the Public Dispensary £525, and the Hospital for Women and
Children £375.

Sixth Festival 1886

The 1886 Festival commenced on Wednesday morning, 13
October, with Israel in Egypt by Handel and finished on Satur-
day evening, 16 October, with Elijah. The following appeared
in the press of 23 October, 1886:

“In the evening a crowded audience assembled at the Town
Hall to hear the Oratorio Elijah. The audience listened through-
out with that decorum which should characterise the performance
of a sacred work but they were tempted more than once to break
into applause.’’
Bach’s B minor Mass was given on the Thursday morning.
Arthur Sullivan was conductor of the Festival and Alfred
Broughton the chorus-master, with Sam Liddle the chorus
pianist, the composer of the famous sacred song Abide with me,
dedicated to Clara Butt. Organists were Dr Spark and Frederic
Cliffe.

Four new choral works were given at this festival: Dvorak

conducted his composition St Ludmilla; The Golden Legend

LEEDS MUSICAL’ FESTIVALS 219

was written and conducted by Sullivan; Revenge was written
and conducted by Stanford, and the Story of Sayid by A. C.
Mackenzie. A score of Story of Sayid was given to the Duke
of Albany by the composer. The Duke, having made marginal
notes during the performance, laid it on a table, but when re-
quired it could not be found.

Another new work for orchestra written for the festival was
a concert overture by a Leeds musician, F. Kilvington Hatters-
ley. According to the critics it lacked development and was
too immature in technique and style. Kilvington Hattersley
lived in Leeds and was often to be seen in the Woodhouse
Lane district, but he had little to do with the musical life of
ine city.

The major orchestral work performed was Beethoven’s fifth
Symphony.

Almost 15,000 people attended this festival and a guarantee
fund of £18,000 had been established before the event.

There was a profit of £4,520 and a distribution to the
hospitals followed: Leeds General Infirmary receiving £1,267,
the Public Dispensary £390, the Women and Children’s
Hospital £292. 10s. A balance of £2,570 was carried forward
to the next festival. Comparative costs are always interesting
and among the expenses of 1883 is an item ““Gas and cleaning
ps 7s. ad. | In- 1086 as the following, “Gas, cleaning,
electric light and gallery £220. 10s. Iod.’’. So electric lhght
was installed in the Town Hall about 1886.

There was apparently some doubt about the arrangements
made for a popular concert at popular prices, as the following
letter appeared in the paper under the heading “‘The Festival
popular Concert’, -addressed to the editor of the Leeds
Mercury:

‘‘The programme of the Musical Festival does not include a
concert on Saturday evening at popular prices, as the programmes
of previous Festivals did. There have been many expressions of
regret that the prices to be charged for the concert in the Victoria
Hall on Saturday evening are such as to exclude many who have
enjoyed the concluding concert in former years: and as letters
on this subject have appeared in your columns, I venture to ask
for permission to give equal publicity to the fact that a popular
concert will be given in the Coliseum* on Saturday evening next.

Edmund Wilson®
Red Hall, Leeds, October 13th 1886.”’
“Now the Gaumont Cinema, Cookridge Street.

> Edmund Wilson was a founder member of the Thoresby Society and a Colonel
of the Leeds Rifle Volunteers.

220 MISCELLANY

The Coliseum in Cookridge Street had been opened by the
Prince of Wales in July 1885 and had seating accommodation
for 3,498 persons, standing room for 400, and room on the
orchestra for 500. It had an auditorium, a dress circle and a
gallery; an organ was built high above the platform, which
the newspaper stated was ‘‘perched up aloft at a curious height
above the orchestra’’. The directors had hoped it would be
used for the Triennial Musical Festivals. The Leeds Philhar-
monic Society held a concert in the Coliseum in the November
of 1885 when Elijah was sung. There was a chorus of three
hundred voices, eighty-eight singers from Dewsbury supple-
menting the choir. Apparently the organ was not finished but
it was reported “‘that its tone was sonorous and rich’’.

The Coliseum was lighted by electricity, seven arc lamps
having been installed. The electricity was generated by two
dynamos driven by an engine. The expense of this innovation
was investigated, and it was found that if the lights burned
continuously for twelve hours, six hundredweight of coke was
consumed at six shillings per ton.

Seventh Festival 1&&9

Before the Festival of 1889 the Committee received a sugges-
tion for their consideration from H. W. Lupton, that an appeal
should be made ‘‘to the remarkable but numerous class who
seem to look upon music as a cover for conversation, begging
them to keep silence during the performances’’.

The suggestion was regarded as a good one, but there was
no agreement how best to carry it out. So it would seem that
the Festival gathering was treated by some people as a con-
versazione. The concert-goers of today would frown upon any
person engaging in conversation even in whispers.

The Festival of 1889 opened on the morning of Wednesday,
g October, with Faust by Berlioz, the conductor being Sir
Arthur Sullivan.

Brahms had been invited to write a symphony, but he replied
‘“‘that his nervous state would not permit him compose a new
work’’; however, his choral composition German Requiem
was included, This is a beautiful work requiring restrained
singing and also voluptuous sound in the majestic parts. It
is noticeable that there was a decrease in the number of altos
employed from that of the 1858 Festival. Eighteen altos sang

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 221

with contraltos which would enhance the fugal entry of the
chorus ‘‘Worthy art Thou to be praised Lord of honour and
might’’.

Dr C. H. H. Parry accepted his first Leeds commission,
composing the music to Pope’s St Cectlia’s Day, which he
conducted at the festival.

Also written for the occasion were The Sword of Argantyr,
by Frederick Corder, and The Sacrifice of Freta by Dr William
Creser® who was the organist of Leeds Parish Church. The
Voyage of Maeldune by Stanford was performed for the first
time; each composer conducted his own composition.

Among standard works performed were Faust by Berlioz,
Acis and Galatea by Handel, Mendelssohn’s Hymn of Praise,
Beethoven’s ninth Symphony and the Golden Legend by
Sullivan, written for the previous festival. Smaller works heard
were Tannhduser (Third Act) by Wagner, God’s time is best
by Bach, Mass in E flat by Schubert, ““Trial Songs’’, from
Die Meitstersinger, by Wagner; also incidental music to
Macbeth by Sullivan, and other items. Few of these works
find their way into choral repertoire today.

The chorus-master was Alfred Broughton. Among the
soloists were Madame Albani, Edward Lloyd, Watkin Mills
and the violinist Sarasate. The chorus pianist was a new-
comer, H. M. Lawrence, and the orchestra of London players.

It is recorded that the chorus had been overworked and was
too tired for the festival, having rehearsed twelve hours on
the Monday, with another rehearsal on the Tuesday of shorter
duration, the festival opening on the Wednesday. Hence the
singing was not up to standard, and the learning of too many
new works had not improved matters. Both Messiah and
Elyjah had been omitted.

Nevertheless, £2,357 was given to the hospitals: to the Leeds
General Infirmary £1,532. 2s. 3d., the Public Dispensary
£471. 8s. 5d., and the Women and Children’s Hospital £353.
tis. 4d. A balance of £785 was carried forward.

Eighth Festival 1892
For the Festival of 1892 the Leeds City Council permitted
the erection of a new gallery from plans designed by James

®° Dr Creser left Leeds to become organist at the Chapel Royal, St James’s,
December, 1801.

222 MISCELLANY

Fraser. It was built 5 feet higher than the previous gallery,
with its centre receding 16 feet, the supporting pillars four in
place of twelve, accommodating five hundred and sixty people.
James Fraser, a Leeds architect, was a man of small stature
and of very smart appearance. He usually wore a grey worsted
frock coat and silk hat and looked a professional man of his
day. He was often to be seen in the vicinity of the University.

Two new works were introduced at this festival, Avethusa,
a cantata written by Dr Alan Gray, a native of York, and a
symphony by Frederic Cliffe.

Dr Gray became Regius Professor of Music at Cambridge;
the death of his son in the first World War prompted him to
compose music to Christina Rossetti’s poem ‘‘What are these
that glow from afar’’, a most descriptive short work sung as
an anthem in cathedrals and parish churches on Armistice
Sunday.

A short orchestral work conducted by the composer was
Richard III by Edward German. Among the soloists were
some famous names, Madame Albani, Edward Lloyd, Ren
Davis, Andrew Black and Plunket Greene. The chorus was
recruited from Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax, Dewsbury
and Batley, and singers were rehearsed in their own towns,
attending full rehearsals in Leeds. There was a band and
chorus of four hundred and fifty, the conductor being Arthur
Sullivan; Alfred Broughton was chorus-master and Alfred
Benton organist. Benton was the organist of Leeds Parish
Church.

The major works performed were the B minor Mass (Bach),
Elijah and the Hymn of Praise (Mendelssohn), Requiem Mass
(Mozart), The Song of Destiny (Brahms), a lovely but intricate
work, requiring a contralto soloist with an extensive vocal
range; The Sphectre’s Bnde, by Dvorak, and selections from
Die Meistersinger (Wagner), which would be a welcome addi-
tion to standard works. Beethoven’s eighth Symphony was
included in the orchestral items.

There was a profit of £2,702. 4s. 2d. from this festival and
£1,300 was given to the Leeds General Infirmary, £300 to
the Public Dispensary, £250 to the hospital for Women and
Children, and £150 to the House of Recovery in Beckett
Street, £702. 4s. 2d. being carried to the reserve fund.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 223

Ninth Festival 1895

For the Festival of 1895, the Corporation re-seated the whole
of the hall; the gallery seats were made larger and more com-
fortable than before, but the number of seats was reduced by
one hundred. The programmes advertised the book History
of the Leeds Musical Festivals from 1858 to 1889 by Fred R.
Spark and Joseph Bennett, at the reduced price of 5/-. This
book has been invaluable in writing the foregoing.

Again in 1895 there was a large list of guarantors whose
promises ranged from £200 down to £10 each.

A new work, an Ode, Invocation to music, by Sir Hubert
Parry was written for the festival in honour of the bi-centenary
of Henry Purcell;’ written also for the festival was a Sym-
phonic Poem for orchestra, Viszons, by Massenet, and an
orchestral Suite in D minor by Edward German. The follow-
ing were the major works: Messiah which had not been heard
at a festival for twenty-one years, The First Walpurgis Night
by Mendelssohn, Beethoven’s Mass in D, Haydn’s Creation
(Part I), Dvorak’s Stabat Mater, Paradise and the Pen (Parts
I and II) by Schumann, Bach’s Christmas Oratorio (Parts I
and II), and excerpts from the Flying Dutchman by Wagner.
Sullivan’s Golden Legend was also given. In addition there
were a few small choral items.

The major orchestral items were Symphony No. 41 in C
(“‘Jupiter’’) by Mozart, Concerto in E minor (Pianoforte and
orchestra) by Chopin, Mendelssohn’s ‘‘Italian’’ Symphony,
the Overture to William Tell by Rossini, Symphony No. 1 in
B flat by Schumann, and the Overture to The Magic Flute by
Mozart.

Herr Emil Sauer was solo pianist and the conductor Sir
Arthur Sullivan. Alfred Benton was the organist, and the
chorus pianist was H. H. Pickard, who officiated in that
capacity many years. |

As a result of the 1895 Festival, £2,000 was handed to the
usual medical charities.

Tenth Festival 1898

The Festival of 1898 was the last to be conducted by Sir
Arthur Sullivan, failing health compelling him to resign the

” Henry Purcell was born in 1658 and died 21 November, 1695, at the age of 37
years. He lies buried in Westminster Abbey.

224 MISCELLANY

position he had held with such distinction since 1880; he had
conducted at seven Leeds Musical Festivals. He died two years
later at the early age of fifty-eight.

New works performed were a cantata, Caractacus by
Edward Elgar, and a choral setting to Collins’s Ode, The
Passtons by Dr Frederick H. Cowen, also an Ode, A song of
Redemption, by Dr Alan Gray, each composer conducting his
own composition. Stanford had written a Te Deum to com-
memorate the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria who had
accepted the dedication, and this work he conducted. Carac-
tacus* was also dedicated to Queen Victoria.

The festival opened with Elijah; Bach’s B minor Mass also
being performed. A pleasing work for soloist and chorus was
the Alto Rhapsody by Brahms, Marie Brema being the soloist.

Blest pair of sirens by Parry would be enjoyed by chorus
and audience alike, also Alexander's Feast by Handel, the
quartette of singers being Miss Palliser, Ada Crossley, Ben
Davies and Andrew Black. Beethoven’s ninth Symphony
formed the second half of the Saturday morning concert. The
Hymn of Pratse by Mendelssohn closed the concert on the
Saturday night. A small orchestral work, Moorish Rhapsody,
was conducted by the composer, Humperdinck.

Women’s hats were very tall in 1898, and ladies were re-
quested to adopt small head-dress for the morning concerts.

The question of pitch had again arisen, and the organ was
re-tuned to the low pitch which would lighten the labours of
the singers, and also place the B minor Mass, the “‘Choral’’
Symphony and the works of Handel in the true pitch for which
they were written. This would be welcomed by all musicians
endowed with the gift of absolute pitch.

Among the soloists were Madame Albani, Miss Clara Butt,
Marian McKenzie and Mr Plunket Greene. Thirteen altos sang
in this festival, a reduction of thirty since 1858. A net profit
of £2,138 was the pecuniary result of this the tenth Festival.

Eleventh Festival rgor
At the first Festival of the new century it was decided that
music of the nineteenth century should, as far as possible, be
*It is many years since Cavactacus was given in Leeds, the last performance
being conducted by Sir Henry Coward when the Leeds Choral Union gave the

work. After the death of their President, Mr Henry C. Embleton, the society un-
fortunately found it difficult to continue and ultimately was compelled to disband.

LEEDS MUSICAL’ FESTIVALS 225

performed, and to cover as many aspects of the musical works
of the century as possible it was agreed that fourteen German,
five French, three Slavonic and twelve British composers
should be represented.

Charles Villiers Stanford was appointed to succeed Sir
Arthur Sullivan as conductor, and it was felt the tradition of
the festival would be worthily maintained. Stanford chose the
band from the Royal Academy and the Royal College of Music,
London.

The festival opened on Wednesday morning the g October
with the overture, In memonam by Sullivan as a tribute to
his memory; this was followed by Messtah, the principals
being Agnes Nicholls, Ethel Wood, Ada Crossley, Ben Davies
and Andrew Black. A new work, The Blind Gurl of Castel-
Cuillé by Coleridge-Taylor, written for the festival and con-
ducted by the composer, formed the first half of the evening
performance. A concerto for pianoforte and orchestra in B
flat, Op. 83, by Brahms, with Leonard Borwick as solo pianist,
was played. This was followed by the overture Rosamunde by
Schubert; truly a most satisfactory second half. On Thursday
morning the concert opened with Verdi’s Requiem, with
Madame Albani, Marie Brema, Ben Davies and David Bispham
as the quariette. The Requiem was composed in 1873 to the
memory of the poet Manzoni. Verdi had written the last
chorus (the Responsorium) in 1868 as part of a Requiem in
honour of Rossini. The words Libera me, Domine de morte
aeterna, first intoned by the soprano soloist, are taken up by
the chorus in a harmonic whisper, and developed in the form
of a fugue into a tremendous fortissimo, dying away softly
at the close with Libera me.

After an interval of forty-five minutes the Thursday morn-
ing concert continued with the Brandenburg Concerto, No. 3
in G by Bach, a choral song, Last Post, by Stanford, an un-
accompanied Motet in eight parts, Surge Illuminare, by
Palestrina, and a Symphonic Poem, Francesa da Rimini, by
Tchaikovsky.

The evening performance consisted of eight items: Leonora
Overture No. 2 by Beethoven; a work for contralto and
orchestra, ‘‘Marfa’’ from Schiller’s Demetrius, with Marie
Brema as soloist, the composition by Joachim who conducted;
a choral work, A song of Darkness and Light, by Parry, with

226 MISCELLANY

Agnes Nicholls singing the soprano solo and conducted by the
composer; A Dirge for two veterans by Charles Wood, with
Plunket Greene as soloist, this being the first performance;
an orchestral prelude, Romeo and Juliet, by Edward German
who conducted it; other small works completed the programme.
Friday morning commenced with an overture, Parisina by
Sterndale Bennett, the Symphony No. 4 in D minor by
Schumann, Concerto for two violins in B minor by Spohr
played by Dr Joachim and Senor Enrique Arbos, The Ninety-
eighth Psalm for eight-part chorus and orchestra by Mendel-
ssohn, and the Finale to Act I of Parsifal by Wagner.

Friday evening was mainly orchestral, Les Deux Journées
by Cherubini; Variations on an original theme (‘‘Enigma’’)
by Elgar who conducted the work; Memorial Cantata by
Glazounov (the first performance in England); Rinaldo by
Brahms, written for male voice chorus and solo tenor, John
Coates being the soloist; a duet,Romeo and Juliet, composed
by Gounod, sung by Agnes Nicholls and John Coates; and
a Caprice for pianoforte and orchestra, Africa, by Saint-Saéns,
the solo pianist being Leonard Borwick.

The Saturday morning was given over to Bach and
Beethoven: Sleepers Wake, a church cantata by Bach, and
the Mass in D by Beethoven, with Albani, Marie Brema, John
Coates and Plunket Greene as soloists. Beethoven commenced
the work in 1818, intending it to be completed by 1820 but
it was 1822 before it was finished and 1824 before it was per-
formed in public, and then only part was heard. It was 1846
when it was first given in England, being performed in London
by the Philharmonic Society nineteen years after the death
of the composer.

The Saturday evening programme was a varied one of eleven
items with the Overture Carnival by Dvorak making a jolly
Finale.

The sum of £1,651 was given to the hospitals.

Twelfth Festival 1904

The Festival of 1904 was held from Wednesday, 5 October
until Saturday night, 8 October. Sir Charles Stanford was the
conductor and Herbert A. Fricker the chorus-master. The
festival opened with Elijah, the soloists being Miss Gleeson-
White, Muriel Foster, Ben Davies and Andrew Black, with

LEEDS MUSICAL: FESTIVALS 2277

local singers from the chorus singing some minor solo parts.
A new work, The Witch’s Daughter (words by J .G. Whittier)
was conducted by the composer Alexander C. Mackenzie, solo
parts being taken by Madame Sobrino and Ffrangcon Davies.
After a fifteen minutes’ interval the Concerto for Violin and
Orchestra in D major by Brahms was played, the soloist being
the world-famed Fritz Kreisler.” This concerto is a colossal
work written in 1878 and first produced in Vienna 14 January,
1879, the solo part being played by Joachim, to whom it was
dedicated. A concert overture, In the south, composed and
conducted by Elgar completed the evening programme. Sir
Edward Elgar had visited Italy the previous winter and his
experiences inspired the writing of this work.

The first work on the Thursday morning was Song of Destiny
by Brahms, generally recognised as one of the composer’s most
perfect masterpieces. This was followed by a symphonic poem,
Death and Transfiguration, by Richard Strauss which dates
from 1889. The next work was a Motet, Voces Clamantium,
written for soprano and bass solos, chorus and orchestra, by
C. Hubert H. Parry who conducted the work. The soloists
were Agnes Nicholls and Plunket Greene. It was first pro-
duced at the Hereford Festival in September 1903.

A test of good choral singing is an unaccompanied work,
when the singers keep the pitch unsupported by an orchestra or
organ. It has often been noticed that a body of singers tend
to lose pitch in a morning and when singing the same work
later in the day they have no trouble in retaining the pitch
even in a lengthy work. After a forty-five minutes’ break for
lunch, the chorus sang a Motet for double chorus (unaccom-
panied) Sing ye to the Lord by Bach. This work was conducted
by the chorus-master H. A. Fricker. It is a magnificent work
and would be thoroughly enjoyed by the singers. Herbert
Austin Fricker, born at Canterbury in 1868, became the City
organist of Leeds and organist at St Michael’s Church, Head-
ingley, relinquishing that post to be organist at the Grammar
School. He was chorus-master of the Leeds Philharmonic
Society and the Festival chorus for many years; he also
founded the Leeds Symphony Orchestra, the concerts being
most popular and well attended. He left Leeds in 1917 to be-
come organist at a church in Toronto where he died 11 Novem-

° Kreisler was an Austrian who fought for his country during the War of 1914-
1918.

228 MISCELLANY

ber 1943. Leeds University conferred on him an honorary
Doctorate for his services to music in Leeds.

On Thursday evening a new work, Everyman, written and
conducted by H. Walford Davies was given its first perform-
ance. The soloists were Miss Gleeson-White, Muriel Foster,
John Coates and H. Lane Wilson. The words are almost en-
tirely those of the old Morality Play finishing with the stanza,

‘““And he that hath his account whole and sound
High in Heaven he shall be crowned.’’

After the interval another new work was given, Queen Mab,
an orchestral tone poem composed by Josef Holbrooke, who
also conducted it.

A Ballad, twenty verses long, La Fiancée du Timbalier set
to music by Saint-Saéns was sung by Marie Brema; this was
followed by Symphony in E flat major by Mozart. This is a
lovely work, full of Mozartian melody and was the first of
the last three symphonies he wrote, the others being the G
minor and the C major (the Jupiter). All three were composed
in 1788.

Friday morning was entirely devoted to Wagner: Lohengrin
third scene Act I, Parsitfal (Flower Maiden scene, Good Fn-
day Spell, and the Finale to Act III) filled the first half, and
after forty-five minutes’ interval, selections from Act III of
Die Meistersinger. A number of well-known soloists were en-
gaged, some often heard in live opera, including Agnes
Nicholls, Marie Brema, John Coates, Gervase Elwes,
Ffrangcon Davies and Charles Knowles who were joined by
two chorus members of solo standard, Herbert Parker and W.
Marsden Williams. Because of the necessity of engaging large
casts these operas are rarely heard; and it is all to the good
when the music is given by competent singers in choral form.

Friday evening opened with the overture Euryanthe by
Weber, followed by a cantata, A ballad of Dundee (words by
W. A. Aytoun), written for the festival by Charles Wood and
conducted by him. Plunket Greene was the soloist. After the
interval a Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D major by
Stanford was played, the soloist being Fritz Kreisler probably
the finest violinist of his day; this was followed by another
work written by Stanford specially for the festival, Five Songs
of the Sea (words by Henry Newbolt), and sung by Plunket
Greene and the chorus.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 229

The final item was an overture, Lustspiel, by Smetana, an
example of musicianly jollity, sometimes known as_ the
““‘Comedy Overture’’.

Saturday morning was given to two works by Beethoven,
and commenced with the Symphony No. 4 in B flat, always a
favourite with music-lovers, written in 1806. This was followed
by a serious choral work the Mass in D, a monumental work
demanding much from the singers, orchestra and soloists, yet
a noble work full of expressive detail and lovely themes. The
soloists were Agnes Nicholls, Muriel Foster, William Green
and Andrew Black.

The final concert given on the Saturday evening was devoted
to two works, The Golden Legend, by Sullivan, which had
been written for the 1886 Festival, the soloists being Madame
Sobrino, Muriel Foster, Ben Davies and Charles Knowles.
After the interval the sixth Chandos Anthem by Handel was
sung, the soloists being Madame Sobrino and Henry Brearley,
the latter being a well known tenor singer in Leeds and a pro-
fessional member of the choir of Leeds Parish Church.

The twelve Chandos anthems were written for the services
at the chapel of Canons, the seat of the Duke of Chandos, to
whom Handel was musical director from 1718 to 1720.

Thirteenth Festival 1907

The Festival of 1907 commenced on Wednesday morning,
g October, with a selection from Handel’s oratorio Israel in
Egybt, followed by Symphony No. g by Beethoven. The finale
of this fine work is built on a theme of five notes which could
be termed, in fact, a five-finger exercise. It is given out by
cellos and basses alone, and is then repeated three times more
by violas and ’cellos in unison with the basses alone in the
depths. The words of the chorus are from Schiller’s Ode to Joy,
Miss Perceval Allen, Miss Marie Brema, Ben Davies and
Ffrangcon Davies forming the quartette. In the evening the
concert opened with The Love that Casteth out Fear by Parry,
a work scored for contralto and bass soli, chorus, semi-chorus
and orchestra; it was conducted by the composer. Ada Cross-
ley and Plunket Greene were the soloists.

After the interval, In Springtime by A. Herbert Brewer, for
tenor solo and male voice chorus, was conducted by the
composer. Gervase Elwes was the soloist.

230 MISCELLANY

The concert ended with Symphony No. 2 in D by Brahms.
It was written during the summer of 1877 and is bright and
happy in character.

On Thursday, 10 October, Stabat Mater, composed by Sir
Charles Stanford, was given its first performance under the
baton of the composer. The soloists were Agnes Nicholls,
Kirby Lunn, Gervase Elwes and Plunket Greene. After an
interval of an hour the concert proceeded and scenes from
Olav Trygvason by Grieg were sung by the chorus, Marie
Brema and Plunket Greene being the soloists.

The concert finished with the orchestral suite Peer Gynt
Nova by aries.

Edward Grieg intended being present at this festival to con-
duct Olav Trygvason and his Pianoforte concerto, besides the
Peer Gynt suite, but his sudden death on 4 September deprived
the musical public of Leeds of an event which had been
anticipated with warm interest.

An Elegiac overture by Joseph Joachim opened the Thurs-
day evening performance followed by two folk-songs arranged
for chorus only by Rutland Boughton,*® namely The Bark-
shire Tragedy and King Arthur, the composer conducting. An
Ode for baritone and orchestra, [ntimations of Immortality, by
Arthur Somervell was conducted by him. The soloist was
Ffrangcon Davies. After an interval of fifteen minutes the
overture to Die Meistersinger by Wagner was played; this was
followed by the first performance of a new work written by
Ralph Vaughan Williams, Toward the unknown region, con-
ducted by the composer. The opening scene to the third Act of
Die Walkire, an orchestral arrangement sanctioned by Wagner
himself was given, followed by the finale from Siegfried, the
soloists being Agnes Nicholls and Ben Davies. This provided
a thrilling finish to the evening as the music is most dramatic,
virile and exciting.

On Friday morning the concert began with the oratorio The
Kingdom, Sir Edward Elgar conducting his own composition.
The soloists were Agnes Nicholls, Kirby Lunn, Ben Davies
and Ffrangcon Davies. This work was first produced at the
Birmingham Festival in 1906 and has since become a standard
work.

After an interval of an hour the Symphony in C major (No.

' Rutland Boughton died 25 January, 1960, aged 82 years.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS aa t

g) by Schubert was played. This was the last orchestral work
to be written by Schubert before he died in 1828 at the age of
31 years. The first public performance of this work in England
was in 1857. It is an immense composition of gigantic propor-
tions yet full of melody.

On Friday evening the first half of the concert, a great yet
most pleasing work was given, Mozart’s Requiem, scored for
soli, chorus and orchestra. Mrs Henry J. Wood, Madame Ada
Crossley, Spencer Thomas and Herbert Brown were the
soloists. Mozart was working on this score at the time of his
death in 1791. For the second part, Granville Bantock’s Sea
Wanderers was conducted by the composer; it is designated
a “‘poem for chorus and orchestra’’, and this was the first
performance; this was followed by the first performance of
Symphony (No. &) by Glazounov.

That colossal work the Mass in B minor by Bach occupied
the whole of the Saturday morning performance, the soloists
taking part being Miss Perceval Allen, Ada Crossley, Gervase
Elwes and Herbert Brown; the solo violin was played by Mr
Arye Parker.

The Saturday evening programme would be most pleasing
to performers and listeners alike, commencing with the over-
ture The Hebrides by Mendelssohn. An eight-part unaccom-
panied Motet, The spirit helpeth us by Bach, was conducted
by the chorus-master, H. A. Fricker.

A song, Vatergruft by Peter Cornelius, was sung by Plunket
Greene, followed by four songs written by Grieg and sung by
Mrs Henry J. Wood; these were An das Vaterland, Warum
schimmert dein Auge, Ein traum and Ich hebe Dich, one of
the loveliest songs among the many he wrote. The Concerto
for pianoforte and orchestra in A minor by Grieg, with Percy
Grainger at the piano, concluded the first half.

Percy Grainger died in a NewYork hospital on 21 February,
1961, at the age of 78. When Grieg died in 1907, Grainger was
the pianist at the memorial concerts in Denmark and England.
This Australian-born musician attained international fame as
a composer rather than a pianist, writing more than four
hundred orchestral and choral pieces, among which were Molly
on the Shore and Handel in the Strand.

The second half of the final concert began with the overture
Leonora No. 3 by Beethoven, which was followed by Five

I

232 MISCELLANY

Sea Songs, written for the Festival of 1904 by Sir Charles
Stanford and sung by the male voices with the soloist, Plunket
Greene. 4

The words of the five songs are by Henry Newbolt and are
most popular with the singers and audience, Stanford giving
the proper lilt to the words.

The grand finale for the chorus and orchestra was in the
rendering of blest Pair of Sirens, an ode by Milton set to music
by Parry in 1887. It is a typically English work, large in style,
and although one of his earliest compositions it is one of the
most familiar to choral societies. It is scored for an eight-part
chorus.

The organist for the Festival was Dr Edward C. Bairstow
who became organist and master of the choir at Leeds Parish
Church in 1906 at the age of 32 years. He left Leeds for York
Minster in 1913 where he held office until his death. He was
a great teacher, a distinguished organist and musician, and
a Yorkshireman, born in Huddersfield. His compositions were
mainly for church use, and he had the reputation of having
trained the finest parish church choir in the country at Leeds
Parish Church. He became the conductor of the Leeds Phil-
harmonic Society in 1917, a post he held for twenty-nine years,
until his death in May 1946 at the age of seventy-two years.
He became Professor of Music at Durham University in 1929,
a position he held with distinction. In 1932 he was knighted
for his services to music, and later received honorary degrees
from the Universities of Leeds and Oxford.

The singers in the chorus of 1go01, 1904 and 1907 were Leeds
choralists only.

Fourteenth Festival 1910

The ro1o0 Festival opened with a performance of Elijah
which had been given a place in eight previous festivals. The
soloists were Agnes Nicholls, Clara Butt, William Green and
Herbert Brown, the quartette Cast thy burden being sung by
chorus members of solo standard, Mary Swailes, Enid Grim-
shaw, J. Lloyd Saxton and Marsden Williams. The Yorkshire
Post critic wrote in the margin of his programme: ‘‘Sops. fine
singing tone, organ full and powerful, Green, good trim in tone
and quality’; referring to Clara Butt, he writes ‘‘close
fitting garb of white with medals’’; of Brown, he writes ‘‘digni-

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 233

fied, manly’’; during some solos, he writes ‘‘some of the ladies
of the chorus sat as if weary’’. Of a trio, Lift thine eyes, in
which Mary Swales, L. Dillingham and Susan Cover sang, he
writes “‘well done’.

The Wednesday evening of 12 October commenced with
A Sea Symphony written by Ralph Vaughan Williams and
conducted by him. The poetry of Walt Whitman attracted the
composer, who sketched the work in 1907, bringing it to fruition
in 1909 to be given its first performance at this concert. It is
a fine work and has often been given in Leeds, but the last
movement presents many difficulties and much time is re-
quired in rehearsal to give a good performance.

Part two of the concert gave the singers a respite, as a
Pianoforte Concerto in C minor (No. 2) by Rachmaninov was
performed, with the composer himself as solo pianist. He was a
tall man of six feet or more and a very clever musician. He
was born in Russia in 1873, visiting England for the first time
in 1899. His composition for the piano, Prelude in C sharp
minor made him a popular composer, this work being fre-
quently played by enthusiastic pianists. A symphonic poem,
Don Juan by Richard Strauss, completed the programme.

On Thursday morning the concert began with the overture
Egmont by Beethoven, followed by a German Requiem by
Brahms, the soloists being Madame Gleeson-White and Kenner-
ley Rumford, the husband of Clara Butt. After an interval
of an hour, a Symphony in E minor, Op. 27, by Rachmaninov
was conducted by the composer. The Yorkshire Post critic
writes of the ‘‘big reception’’, which was evidently accorded
Rachmaninov. An unaccompanied chorus, Go song of mine
by Edward Elgar, followed by a madrigal, As Vesta was from
Latmos Hill descending by Thomas Weelkes the Elizabethan
composer, was conducted by the chorus-master, Herbert A.
Fricker, of which the critic writes that it had a ‘‘warm recep-
s10n

An overture, In der Natur by Antonin Dvorak (1841-1904)
was played.

On Thursday evening Ode on St Cecilia’s Day by Handel
was given; the soloists were Agnes Nicholls and Walter Hyde,
with the pianoforte continuo played by Dr Walford Davies,
that man of charm, so familiar to music lovers and others
through his broadcasts on the theme of ‘‘music and the ordin-

234 MISCELLANY
ary listener’. The Ode was written in 1739, Handel setting
to music the words of Dryden in ten days, 15 to 24 September.

Songs of the Fleet were conducted by the composer, Stan-
ford; this cycle of five songs, the words by Henry Newbolt,
has become a favourite diversion by choral societies from the
more serious works. Plunket Greene sang the solos. This was
followed by Act I of Die Walktire by Wagner; Agnes Nicholls,
Walter Hyde and Robert Radford the soloists, the music de-
riving its melodic material from the drama it illustrates, as is
usual in Wagner.

The concert of Friday, 14 October, commenced with the
Enmgma Variations by Elgar, now so very well known and
much appreciated because of the friends he describes in the
fourteen items.

This was followed by a choral work Wellington, with
soprano and bass soloists, written and conducted by Stanford.
The poem was written by Tennyson in 1852 as a lament on
the death of the Duke of Wellington. Agnes Nicholls and
Plunket Greene were the soloists. After an interval of an hour,
an unaccompanied motet, Sing ye to the Lord by Bach, was
conducted by the chorus-master, H. A. Fricker, and sung by
the chorus. This was followed by the Symphony in E flat No. 3
(‘‘Eroica’’) by Beethoven, a work he composed during 1803
and 1804. How strange that an ode to Wellington should be
followed by a symphony inspired by Napoleon.

The evening concert commenced with an orchestral work,
Villon, a symphonic poem by William Wallace, followed by a
song cycle, The Sea Pictures by Edward Elgar, sung by Clara
Butt. She first sang them at the Norwich Festival of 1899. The
Blessed Damozel, composed by Claude Debussy, the words
by Rossetti, was introduced to the Leeds Musical Festival for
the first time. Debussy was born in 1862, and this work was
written when he was nineteen years old. After the interval the
third Symphony in E flat (‘‘Rhenish’’) by Schumann was
played, followed by a Rhapsody for chorus, soloist and
orchestra, the Wedding of Shon Maclean by Hubert Bath, con-
ducted by the composer, who was born at Barnstaple in 1883;
the soloists were Miss Perceval Allen and Kennerley Rumford.

The Saturday morning of 15 October was given to Bach’s
St Matthew Passion; the chorus included a choir of fifty boys;
the principal soloists were Campbell McInnes, Gervase Elwes,

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 235

Agnes Nicholls, Ada Crossley and Robert Radford, at the
pianoforte: Dr Walford Davies, organ: Dr E. C. Bairstow,
violin obbligati by Frye Parker and Arthur Bent. Small parts
were sung by four members of the chorus, This work was first
performed in the Church of St Thomas, Leipzig, on Good
Friday, 15 April, 1729, but it was not until 6 April, 1854, that
it was first heard in this country under the direction of Stern-
dale Bennett, who edited the first English edition, published
by Messrs. Novello, in 1862. The edition used at the Leeds
performance was prepared by Sir Charles Stanford, but of
recent years the Elgar-Atkin edition has superseded the earlier
ones. Parts of the St Matthew Passion music have been sung
at the Leeds Parish Church in Holy Week for many years,
and attract large congregations.

The final concert in the evening commenced with Tchaikov-
sky's Symphony No. 4 in F minor, written in 1877 and first
performed in Moscow in February 1878.

The Pied Piper of Hamelin, written for chorus, two soloists
and orchestra was conducted by the composer, C. Hubert H.
Parry. It is a choral setting of Browning’s well known poem,
and was first given at the Norwich Festival in 1905. Gervase
Elwes and Plunket Greene were the soloists. The overture to
The Magic Flute by Mozart followed the interval. Three short
songs arranged for orchestra were sung by the chorus, after
which selections from Act III of Die Meistersinger were given.
The part of Eva was sung by Miss Perceval Allen, that of
Walther by Walter Hyde, and Hans Sachs by Walter Radford.

It was at this festival, when Stanford was taking a final
rehearsal that he went on long after the time when he should
have finished. The members of the chorus were anxious about
their meal and they asked Mr Shaw the assistant secretary
what they should do, to which he replied “‘Hop out of the back
‘and off you go’’. Stanford observed that he was left with about
half the singers, stopped the rehearsal and said, ‘‘Is your lunch
more sacred than the Festival?’’ and he finished in a furious
temper.

This was the last Leeds Festival to be conducted by Sir
Charles Stanford, but he occasionally visited the city. In
November 1923 a complimentary dinner was given by the
Leeds Philharmonic Society in the Queens Hotel, Sir Charles
being the guest of honour. He had attended the final rehearsal

236 MISCELLANY

at the Town Hall to listen to his composition Stabat Mater.
He was then seventy-two years of age and seemed feeble in
body; he died 29 March, 1924, leaving an honoured name
and his own memorial in the works he wrote, and in particular
the music for the Church which is sung by every choir of
cathedral standard throughout the country. He was buried ‘in
Westminster Abbey, in the north aisle behind the choir.
The total amount of money given to the medical charities
of Leeds since the inception of the festivals in 1858, was

£22,834.

Fifteenth Festival 1913

The Festival of 1913 brought a change of orchestra and
conductors; the London Symphony Orchestra, a band of
players who had rehearsed together and who were in the best
sense of the word an ensemble, were under the batons of
Arthur Nikisch, a wonderful conductor, and of Sir Edward
Elgar and Dr Hugh P. Allen. The festival commenced on
Wednesday morning, I October. After the National Anthem,
Leonora No. 3 by Beethoven was played, after which The
Dream of Gerontius by Elgar was heard by a Leeds audience
for the first time. It was first performed at the Birmingham
Musical Festival, 3 October, rg00, but was not well received.
It was then performed at Diisseldorf in December 1gor when
it was so successful that it was performed at the Lower Rhine
Festival in 1902. Since then this distinctive work has been per-
formed in every music-loving country and is now an estab-
lished favourite. It is set to the poem by Cardinal Newman
and is a truly great work. Elgar conducted this performance,
with John Coates as Gerontius, Robert Radford as the Priest,
and Muriel Foster as the Angel, a wonderful trio.

After an interval of an hour Ode to Music, by C. Hubert H.
Parry, the words by A. C. Benson was sung, the soloists being
Carrie Tubb, Winifred Pullon, Muriel Foster, John Coates and
Robert Radford. It was first given at the Royal College of
Music in Igot.

Then came that lovely work known as the Alto Rhapsody
(written in 1869) by Brahms from Goethe’s poem, ‘‘Harzreise
im Winter’’, with Muriel Foster and a male voice chorus.
Another work by Brahms followed, the Symphony No. 3 in
F, completed in 1883 and performed in Vienna in the Decem-

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 237

ber under the great Dr Richter, who introduced the work into
this country at one of his London concerts in May 1884.

The evening concert began with the overture to Oberon, by
Weber, followed by the scene, Ocean thou mighty monster,
sung by Miss Edyth Walker. Oberon was written for the Eng-
lish stage, Weber residing in London and conducting twelve
out of twenty-eight performances during April and May of
1826. He died in Great Portland Street, London, in June 1826,
but in 1844 his remains were transferred to Dresden to be
deposited in the family vault.

The Pranoforte Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor by Tchaikov-
sky followed, Madame Teresa Carrenio being the solo pianist.
This is still a popular work and pleasing to hear. After the
interval the first performance of Song on a May morning for
chorus and orchestra was conducted by the composer Basil
Harwood.

The concert closed with Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 5
in E minor. This work was completed in 1888 and published
the following year, but was not received generously. Nikisch
revived it in 1895 when it was acclaimed equal to the famous
Pathetic Symphony.

On Thursday morning, 2 October, Nikisch conducted the
Requiem Mass by Verdi, a work full of beauty and melody.
It is certain that this performance would excel any previously
given in Leeds. It is an exciting and exhilarating work, grow-
ing from sotto voce to tremendous fortissimos, delightful to
sing under a conductor like Arthur Nikisch. Three of the
soloists were Dutch: Madame A. Noordewier-Reddingius,
Madame P. de Haan-Manifarges, Mr Van Rooy the bass, and
John Coates the tenor, the one English soloist. At one full
rehearsal, Nikisch moved Mr Pickard from the piano and, with
the full orchestral score before him, played the parts in the
manner in which he wished the singers to sing. It brought the
desired effect.

A Shropshire Lad, Rhapsody for full Orchestra by George
Butterworth was given its first performance. This young York-
shire composer of great promise was killed in the first World
War, when the world of music was deprived of a man of out-
standing talent. The Motet, Jesu, Priceless Treasure by Bach,
was conducted by Dr Hugh P. Allen, unaccompanied. Dr
Allen was conductor of the Bach Choir, London.

238 MISCELLANY

The Symphony No. 7 in A by Beethoven was conducted by
Nikisch; it was first performed in Vienna on 8 December, 1813,
the concert given for the benefit of soldiers wounded at the
battle of Hanau. It is singular that just one hundred years
later it was performed at this Festival for the hospitals of
Leeds.

On Thursday evening, Dante and Beatrice, a poem for
orchestra by Granville Bantock was given. This was followed
by the prologue to Mefistofele by Arrigo Boito, and sung by
Thorpe Bates and the chorus. Miss Muriel Foster followed by
singing the song O don fatale by Verdi. The first performance
of the symphonic study for orchestra, Falstaff by Edward
Elgar, was conducted by the composer. Since then, this work
has often been performed in Leeds.

A poem (for baritone solo, chorus and orchestra) The Mystic
Trumpeter by Hamilton Harty was given its first performance
and conducted by the composer. The words are those of Walt
Whitman. The soloist was Thorpe Bates. Sir Hamilton Harty
married Miss Agnes Nicholls and for some years he was con-
ductor of the MHallé Orchestra, succeeding Sir Thomas
Beecham. Following this work were five songs by Hugo Wolf
(1860-1903), sung by Muriel Foster.

Two unaccompanied choral works, Love I give myself to
Thee and To the storm wind, both by Cornelius (1824-1874)
were conducted by Herbert Fricker the chorus-master. The
final work for the evening was Symphony in G minor by
Mozart, to which reference was made earlier as one of three
composed in 1788.

On Friday morning, 3 October, Bach’s B minor Mass was
sung, that mighty work to which reference has already been
made. The Dutch ladies, Madame A. Noordewier-Reddingius
and Madame P. de Haan-Manifarges sang with Gervase Elwes
and Robert Radford. Dr Hugh P. Allen conducted.

The evening concert commenced with the overture Benvenuto
Cellini, by Berlioz, followed by an Ivish Rhapsody No, 1 in
D minor by Stanford. The Violin Concerto in D by Beethoven,
the soloist Mischa Elman, completed the first half. This was
the only completed violin concerto written by Beethoven and
was composed in 1806. After the interval a Ballad for chorus,
soloists and orchestra, Tatllefer by Richard Strauss, was per-
formed. It was composed in Ig02 and was given at the Bristol
Festival in 1905.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 239

Wagner was represented by the scene from the Prologue,
Trauermarsch, and the closing scene, from Gétterdimmerung,
with Edyth Walker and John Coates as Briinnhilde and
Siegfried. This would be a wonderful climax to the day.
Nikisch conducted the whole of the evening.

On the Saturday morning, 4 October, an entirely Wagnerian
programme was given, commencing with A Faust Overture
(composed 1839-40), then the prelude and closing scene from
Act I of Parsifal, with Mr Van Rooy singing the part of
Amfortas and Mr Robert Radford that of Titurel. The first
performance of Parsifal took place at Bayreuth on 26 July,
1882, and is among Wagner’s most mature works. He died
the following year at the age of seventy.

After the interval, the Overture and selections from Act III
of Die Meistersinger provided an enjoyable finish to the con-
cert, John Coates singing the part of Walther and Van Rooy
that of Sachs. Wagner spread this composition over a few
years, and finally Hans Richter prepared the score for publica-
tion, after which it was performed at Munich Opera House,
21 June, 1868, under the conductorship of Von Bilow. The
opera was introduced into this country by Richter, at Drury
Lane on 30 May, 1882.

The Saturday evening brought the festival to a close by the
rendering of Elijah, the work being conducted by Dr Hugh
Allen. The soloists were Carrie Tubb, Phillis Lett, Gervase
Elwes and Robert Radford. Minor solo parts were given to a
few members of the chorus. This work had already been given
at nine previous festivals, and for many years was given
annually in Leeds by the Choral Union under their conductor
Sir Henry Coward. Unfortunately this society ceased after
the death of its patron Henry Embleton.

So the Festival of 1913 ended, and there are older people
today who remember that glorious feast of music which was
produced by a really first rate orchestra and the wonderful
singing of the choir. The following year World War I broke
upon Europe and the Festival was abandoned and was not
revived until 1922.

Sixteenth Festival 1922

In 1921 the chorus for the 1922 Festival was selected and
for a full year the new chorus rehearsed works ancient and

240 MISCELLANY

modern, a rehearsal taking place every week with special re-
hearsals on Saturday, when composers usually conducted their
- own compositions. The conductors appointed were Albert
Coates, a pupil of Nikisch, who was born in Russia of English
parents, and Sir Hugh Allen. Coates was a giant both
physically and mentally, and to sing under him and see him
wield his long baton was an exhilarating experience.

The festival began on Wednesday morning, 4 October, open-
ing with the National Anthem to the setting by Elgar; the
thrill of the drum roll and the joy of listening to the opening
bars by the orchestra was only one of the great experiences
of the festival, but what an experience for a young singer.
Dr Albert Tysoe, organist of the Leeds Parish Church was
chorus-master, Norman Strafford the chorus pianist, Percy
Richardson the festival organist.

Albert Coates conducted the final rehearsals clad in shirt
with open neck and sleeves rolled up.

The morning concert began with Verdi’s Requiem with the
London Symphony Orchestra and the soloists Dorothy Sik,
Margaret Balfour, John Coates and Robert Radford, Albert
Coates conducting. This was followed by Bach’s Fantasia and
Fugue in C minor orchestrated by Elgar, after which came a
choral work, Song of Destiny by Brahms; this was followed
by an orchestral work, Poéme d’Extase by Scriabin, written
1907-1908 and first performed in Moscow in 1909.

On Wednesday evening Coates was again in charge, the
concert opening with the overture, ‘‘Cortege de Noces’’ from
the Opera Cog d’Or by Rimsky-Korsakov. The pianoforte
concerto was Beethoven’s Concerto No. 5 in E flat (‘‘Em-
peror’’) with Alfred Cortot as solo pianist. Two unaccompanied
part-songs, conducted by the chorus-master, were followed by
the Symphonic Vanations for pianoforte and orchestra by
César Franck, with Cortot as pianist.

When Coates returned to the platform he had changed his
whole outfit, as long before the interval his collar was limp,
his hair dishevelled and his shirt-front crumpled.

After the interval an orchestral suite in seven movements ~
by Gustav Holst, The Planets, was performed. On Thursday
morning the first half was wholly given to Parry, the Sym-
phonic Vanations, three Motets from Songs of Farewell, a
choral work, Ode on the Nativity of Christ, with Dorothy Silk

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 241

as soloist, three songs, with pianoforte accompaniment, by
Sir Hugh Allen, and the Choral ode, Blest pair of Sirens. After
the interval Albert Coates conducted the Symphony No. 1 in
C minor by Brahms.

The works performed on the Thursday evening were a
Symphonic Poem by Strauss, an orchestral work, Fountains
of Rome by Respighi, an orchestral piece Appalachia by Delius
with incidental chorus, the choral portion being exquisitely
beautiful. Beethoven’s ninth Symphony concluded the even-
ing, the soloists being Eleanor Paget, Margaret Balfour, John
Coates and Robert Radford, with Albert Coates as conductor.

On Friday morning six works by Bach were conducted by
Sir Hugh Allen: Cantata, O Light Everlasting; Concerto in F
major; an unaccompanied Motet, Come, Jesu come; the
cantata, Since Christ is all my being, with Dorothy Silk, Mar-
garet Balfour, John Adams and Norman Allin. After the
interval came a choral work, Magnificat in D, with the same
soloists with the addition of the Leeds singer, Elsie Suddaby.

The Concerto in C major for three pianofortes and string
orchestra, with Kathleen Frise Smith, Dorothy Hesse and
Herbert Johnson (all local artistes) as the pianists, concluded
the concert.

Friday evening opened with the overture Euryanthe by
Weber; then came a choral work, Poem of Death by Holst.
This was followed by the Violin Concerto by Elgar with Albert
Sammons as solo violin. A short choral work for four-part
choir, Hey, nonny no by Dame Ethel Smyth, was conducted
by the composer. The music is set to a sixteenth century poem,
from a manuscript in Christ Church, Oxford. Dame Ethel
won the hearts of the members of the chorus at her first appear-
ance to take a rehearsal. Part II began with the Finale from
Act I of Parstfal by Wagner, the soloists being Norman Allin
and Percy Heming, with a choir of twenty boys from the Leeds
Parish Church. The concert finished with a tone-poem
for orchestra with chorus, Prometheus: the Poem of Fire by
Scriabin, with Anderson Tyrer as solo pianist and Albert Coates
conducting.

The Saturday morning concert opened with the symphonic
poem Romeo and Juliet by Tchaikovsky, then the orchestral
work Till Eulenspiegel by Richard Strauss, followed by
a symphony; after lunch, there were selections from Dve

242 MISCELLANY

Meistersinger, including the overture and the lovely quintette,
finishing with the last chorus in the work, ‘‘Honour your
German masters’’: the words were changed to ‘‘Honour your
native masters’’, as people were still bitter and the war was
not forgotten. Coates conducted.

On Saturday evening, 7 October, Scheherazade by Rimsky-
Korsakov opened the concert, after which the chorus sang
selections from Israel in Egypt by Handel. Part II began with
an orchestral work Lincoln Imp composed by William Henry
Reed (the principal first violin of the orchestra); then followed
the Prelude and Finale from Tristan und Isolde by Wagner,
the soloist being Eleanor Paget; the concert finished with the
orchestral work, Francesca da Rimim, by Tchaikovsky, a
superb work with which to end the festival. Albert Coates
conducted, and the festival had been highly successful.

The mention of Leeds Parish Church calls to mind the
special services arranged to take place during festival week,
with the rendering of special music by the Choir. For many
years the Vicar and Churchwardens together with the valued
assistance of the Organist and the Precentor compiled a book
of services which sold for a modest sum, the 1925 issue being
of outstanding value.

Seventeenth Festival 1925

The Festival of 1925 opened on Wednesday, 7 October,
and finished on Saturday night, 10 October; Albert Coates
and Sir Hugh Allen were the conductors, as in 1922, and the
band that of the London Symphony Orchestra.

The artistes engaged were, Sopranos: Florence Austral,
Dorothy Silk, Elsie Suddaby; Contraltos: Margaret Balfour
and Muriel Brunskill; Tenors: Walter Hyde, Walter Widdop,
Raymond Hartley and Steuart Wilson; the Basses: Norman
Allin, Robert Radford and Herbert Heyner. Dr A. C. Tysoe
was chorus-master, Percy Richardson organist, and Norman
Strafford the chorus pianist.

The Wednesday morning opened with Elgar’s setting of
the National Anthem, followed by a choral work Stabat Mater
by Dvorak. After an interval of an hour the orchestra played
a suite, Tsar Saltan, No. 3, by Rimsky-Korsakov. Two
unaccompanied choruses followed, This Worldes Jote and
Mater ora filium, both written by Arnold Bax who became

LEEDS MUSICAL, FESTIVALS 243

Master of the King’s Music in 1942. The Alto Rhapsody by
Brahms for contralto soloist and male chorus, then the Divine
Poem for orchestra by Scriabin closed the concert.

The evening commenced with a chorus from Handel’s
Solomon, “Shake the Dome’’, which was followed by a choral
symphony (for solo soprano, chorus and orchestra) by Gustav
Holst. This is a difficult work, as Holst employs rhythms so
different from his predecessors, thus creating an idiom which
demands usage before his poetic conception can be appreci-
ated. It was given again by the Philharmonic Society in April
1961, not having been heard in Leeds since the 1925 Festival.

A Concerto for Violoncello in D by Haydn, with Madame
Guilhermina Suggia as soloist, was received with great
applause. The chorus and orchestra, with Herbert Heyner the
baritone, gave Charles Wood’s Dirge for Two Veterans, a
most descriptive work.

Suggia was heard again in the Suite in C major for violon-
cello by Bach, an unaccompanied work. The Symphony No.
4 in E minor by Brahms was the final item; it was written in
1885 and conducted by Richter in London, 10 May, 1886,
the manuscript score being entrusted to him. This was the
last symphony composed by Brahms, although he lived until
1897, dying at the age of 63 years.

Sir Hugh Allen conducted the concert given on Thursday
morning, which opened with Parry’s Jerusalem, followed by
A Sea Symphony by Vaughan Williams, which was first heard
at the 1910 Festival. Bach’s Concerto in D minor for two
violins and strings brought a lighter vein to the concert; the
soloists were Sheila Stewart and Herzyl Leiken.

Parry wrote a number of choral works and the Ode, The
glories of our Blood and State, from the poem by Shirley, was
sung by the chorus, followed by a lovely two-verse part-song,
Heraclitus, written by Stanford (the words by William Cory),
and given in commemoration of the composer who conducted
the Festivals from Igor to rg10 and was for a longer period
conductor of the Leeds Philharmonic Society’s concerts; he
died in 1924. Stanford’s Songs of the Fleet, completed in 1910,
were sung by the chorus with Herbert Heyner the baritone
soloist. The Overture (or suite) in D by Bach completed the
morning concert.

On Thursday evening Albert Coates had the baton; the first

244 MISCELLANY

item, Soul of the World by Purcell from the St Cecilia Ode,
was sung by the chorus. A symphonic poem, Pines of Rome
by Respighi, was given its first performance, having been
completed in 1924 and published in 1925.

A motet, Assumpta est Maria by Palestrina (c. 1525- 1594),
was sung by the chorus, and was followed by a poem for
orchestra and chorus, The Eagle, composed by Albert Coates,
with Elsie Suddaby and Muriel Brunskill as soloists. Coates
dedicated the work ‘‘to my great and beloved master, Arthur
Nikisch’’. Then followed a scene from the Prologue and
Hagen’s Call to arms from Gétterdimmerung, with Florence
Austral and Walter Widdop as Briinnhilde and Siegfried, in a
wonderful and unforgettable performance. Selections from
Lohengrin, with five soloists and chorus completed the pro-
eramme.

On Friday morning the Mass in B minor by Bach was sung;
it will be observed that this has become associated with the
Friday morning concerts. It was conducted by Sir Hugh Allen.
On Friday evening Albert Coates conducted, the opening item
being the chorus from Solomon, ‘‘May no rash intruder’’, by
Handel, sung by the chorus. Again the chorus sang, but now
a modern composer was represented in The song of the high
hills by Delius, the Bradford-born composer. It is scored for
orchestra and chorus.

A pianoforte Concerto No. 2 in C minor by Rachmaninov
was given, with Myra Hess the solo pianist. After the interval
the Symphony No. 9 in D minor by Beethoven completed the
concert; Florence Austral, Muriel Brunskill, Walter Widdop
and Robert Radford were the soloists, a rich quartette with
blending voices.

Coates was unwell when the Choral Symphony was to be
given, so he retired and the work was conducted by W. H.
Reed the principal violinist.

On Saturday morning, Io October, one of the loveliest works
in music was performed, Mozart’s Requiem, with Elsie
Suddaby, Muriel Brunskill, Walter Hyde and Norman Allin
as soloists. An ode for chorus and orchestra followed, Nante
by Brahms; this was followed by a short symphonic poem,
Lux Eterna by Howard Hanson, an American composer of
Swedish extraction. An orchestral suite, Through the Looking
Glass by Joseph Deems Taylor was also the composition of

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 245

an American who was born in New York in 1885. It is picture
music for the orchestra. Tod and Verklarung (Death and
Transfiguration) by Richard Strauss was followed by that
charming work by Elgar, Introduction and Allegro for Strings.
This composition was introduced to the public on 8 March,
1905, when it was given by the London Symphony Orchestra.
Prometheus by Scriabin, with Myra Hess as solo pianist, com-
pleted the morning concert.

The final concert on Saturday evening opened with the
Symphony No. 5 by Tchaikovsky. It has been heard in Leeds
many times and was a favourite work at the time of this
festival. The chorus sang Psalm 114, When Israel out of Egypt
came by Mendelssohn, which was conducted by Dr A. C.
Tysoe the chorus-master.

The second half commenced with the Tartar dances from
Prince Igor by Borodin, a piece of jollity and most popular
with mvsical audiences.

The overture and selections from Act III of Die Meister-
singer, by Richard Wagner, was a grand finish to the festival
for the orchestra and singers, both soloists and chorus. Albert
Coates deserved all the applause accorded him.

The proceeds from the festivals given to the Medical Charities
of Leeds amounted to £23,334.

Eighteenth Festival 1928

sir Thomas Beecham opened the 1928 Festival on Wednes-
day, 3 October, with a performance of Messiah, with the
soloists Florence Austral, Muriel Brunskil, Steuart Wilson,
Harold Williams and solo trumpet, Ernest Hall. The orchestra
was not styled but most of the players were members of the
London Symphony Orchestra. It was a brilliant performance
musically, but Messiah must be a spiritual work to be fully
effective. Sir Thomas omitted certain numbers and transposed
some of the later sections, finishing with the Hallelujah Chorus,
so the performance did not follow the sequence as scored.

The evening concert also conducted by Beecham consisted
of the Symphony No. 2 (Beethoven); Sea Drift (Delius), in
which the soloist was Dennis Noble; Pranoforte Concerto in
C minor (Mozart), with Myra Hess as solo pianist; Sea Pictures
by Elgar, sung by Margaret Balfour, was followed by three
pianoforte solos by Brahms, played by Myra Hess. Ode to St

246 MISCELLANY

Cecilia by Handel, with Florence Austral and Walter Hyde
as soloists concluded the concert. Beecham was very fond of
the music of Handel and also did more than any other con-
ductor to pioneer the works of Delius, the Bradford-born
composer.

On Thursday, 4 October, at the morning concert, works by
Bach were performed, starting with the Cantata, Watch ye,
pray ye, with Dorothy Silk, Muriel Brunskill, Steuart Wilson
and Keith Falkner as soloists. This work was written by Bach
to be performed on Advent Sunday, 1716. The composer ex-
panded the original version when it was again performed at
Leipzig on the 26th Sunday after Trinity, 1723. This is now
the accepted version. Concerto in D, Brandenburg No. 5, with
W. H. Reed solo violin, Gordon Walker solo flute, and Dorothy
Hesse solo pianoforte, was followed by the Motet, Be not
afraid, for double choir, which also gave ‘‘Now hath the grace
and the strength’’, an eight-part chorus. The Overture in C
major for two oboes, bassoon and string orchestra by Bach
brought the concert to the interval.

Selections from Bach’s Peasant Cantata, with Dorothy Silk
and Keith Falkner, were sung, followed by the cantata, Der
Himmel lacht, Steuart Wilson making the trio of soloists. A
concerto for two pianofortes in C major by Bach gave novelty
to the festival; the soloists were Dorothy Hesse and Kathleen
Frise-Smith, the Leeds pianists.

The Thursday evening concert opened with the Symphony
in E flat by Schumann, a work written in 1850 and like most
of his work full of melody. A work for chorus and two soloists
followed, The Blessed Damozel by Debussy, the soloists
Dora Labette and Lottie Beaumont, the latter being a local
contralto. Requiem by Brahms followed, conducted by Sir
Thomas Beecham, with Dora Labette and Harold Williams
as soloists. Brahms began this work after the death of his
mother in 1865 and the first three sections were given in Vienna
i December, 1867. He completed this lovely work in 1868.

On Friday morning, 5 October, the Mass in D by Beethoven
was given, Sir Hugh Allen conducting. Dorothy Silk, Muriel
Brunskill, Parry Jones and Norman Allin were a splendid
quartette yet each a soloist. This was a great performance of
a great work, ending with the ‘‘Dona nobis pacem’’ which
Beethoven himself in the score called ‘‘a prayer for inner and
outer peace’’.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 247

As this was the centenary year of the death of Schubert
(1797-1828), it was marked by the performance of his Sym-
phony in C major called ‘‘the great’’; Schubert never heard
this work, as he died the year it was written, and it was not
performed in London until 1856.

On Friday evening, the concert opened with Job by Parry,
Sir Hugh Allen conducting, with Parry Jones, Keith Falkner
and Dennis Noble, and Elsie Suddaby singing the part of
Shepherd boy; she was a Leeds singer and first trained by
Dr Bairstow, who discovered her lovely voice when she was
taking lessons for pianoforte. He asked her to sing a part
which she found difficulty in playing and the secret of her
voice was disclosed. He advised her to take up singing and
she became a soprano soloist of the first rank. After the interval
of ten minutes, four movements from the ballet suite Apollo
by Stravinsky were played, followed by ‘‘Spring’’ (Part I
of The Seasons) by Haydn, the soloists being Elsie Suddaby,
Parry Jones and Dennis Noble. Beecham was very fond of
this oratorio.

The symphonic poem, Ein Heldenleben, by Richard Strauss,
written in 1898, was played by the orchestra under the direc-
tion of Sir Thomas Beecham, this being the last item of the
evening.

Saturday morning opened with the Pastoral Symphony by
Vaughan Williams whose compositions have so often been
performed in Leeds. This symphony was first performed in
London, on 26 January, 1922, under Adrian Boult. There is
a part for a soprano soloist, who in this performance was Dora
Labette.

Four part-songs (for female voices, horns and harp) by
Brahms were sung by the ladies of the chorus. The orchestral
suite Facade, by William Walton, written in 1923 when he
was 21 years of age and revised in 1926, was performed, and
another short orchestral work Temptation, pipe march by
Henry Gibson, with a savouring of the ‘‘road to Tipperary”’
scored within.

Then followed a Concerto (for Violin and Violoncello, Op.
102) by Brahms, with two sisters, May and Beatrice Harrison,
as soloists. This was Brahms’ last work for orchestra and was
first performed by Joachim and Hausmann at Cologne in 1887.

The Te Deum (Op. 22) by Berlioz, commissioned for the

K

248 MISCELLANY

opening of the Paris exhibition in 1855, was enjoyed by chorus
and orchestra, who were joined by a choir of boys provided
by Leeds Parish Church. Walter Hyde was the soloist, and
Sir Thomas Beecham conducted.

On Saturday night the Overture to the Flying Dutchman by
Wagner, followed by Act I, Scene 2 of Parsifal were given,
Percy Heming and Norman Allin being the soloists. The boys
from the Leeds Parish Church choir provided the “distant
singing’. An unaccompanied work Mater ora Film, a choral
work for double choir by Arnold Bax written in 1921, was
conducted by the chorus-master, Norman Strafford. A recita-
tive and aria by Verdi concluded the first half of the concert.

The second half opened with the Symphony No. 4 1n F minor
by Tchaikovsky, the works of this composer being very
popular during the first quarter of this century.

The chorus had the last appearance of the evening when
with the orchestra they sang Blest Pair of Sirens from Milton’s
ode, ‘‘At a Solemn Musick’’, a most fitting conclusion to a
musical festival. Parry wrote this work in 1887 when it was
sung by the Bach Choir under Sir Charles Stanford, to whom
it is jointly dedicated.

During the whole of the festival, from the beginning of the
final rehearsals to the end, Sir Thomas Beecham conducted
without a score, truly an amazing feat of memory. One re-
members him perusing a score before the Saturday morning
performance, evidently to refresh his memory, but he put
it down by the side of the dais and again conducted from
memory. He was a musician of rare talent, and a genius of a
conductor.

The sum given to the medical charities of Leeds from the
festivals had now reached £23,534 but the profits from the
festival were declining.

Nineteenth Festival 1931

The four-day Festival of 1931 opened on Wednesday, 7
October, with the National Anthem arranged by Elgar,
followed by Solomon by Handel, the performance timed to
take one hundred minutes, the soloists being Stiles-Allen,
Dora Labette, Walter Widdop and Keith Falkner.

After an interval of an hour and thirty minutes, the Sym-
phony No. 3 (‘‘Eroica’’) by Beethoven formed the second

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 249

half, which was timed to take fifty minutes. In the evening
was heard the Mass in D minor of Cherubini, with Dora
Labette, Astra Desmond, Francis Russell and Horace Stevens
as soloists, a wonderful quartette. An interval of fifteen minutes
and the Violoncello Concerto by Elgar, with Antoni Sala as
soloist was performed, the concert finishing with the Sym-
phonic Variations, Don Quixote by Strauss, Sala making his
contribution on the ’cello, along with Anthony Collins the solo
viola; Beecham conducted both performances. The London
Symphony Orchestra had been engaged for the festival.

Thursday morning opened with the Mass of Life by Delius.
The soloists were Stiles-Allen, Muriel Brunskill, Francis
Russell and Keith Falkner. It is recorded that a magnificent
performance of the Mass of Life was given by the Philharmonic
Choir under Sir Thomas Beecham in the presence of the com-
poser at the Delius Festival in the autumn of 1929. The Leeds
performance was also magnificent.

There was a lunch interval of an hour and a half, and then
a new choral work, Pervigilium Veneris by Frederick Austin,
occupied the next twenty minutes, the Symphony No. 3 in F
by Brahms finishing the concert, which was conducted by Sir
Thomas Beecham.

On Thursday evening Dr Malcolm Sargent conducted, the
concert commencing with Toward the unknown Region, a
song for chorus and orchestra, by Vaughan Williams. This
was followed by the Concerto in D minor for two violins and
orchestra, by Bach. Albert Sammons and Isolde Menges were
the soloists. A new choral work, The Seasons by Eric Fogg,
was conducted by the composer; mention of this work recalls
the tragic death of this young musician in December 1939 at
the age of 36 years. He spent much of his musical life in
Manchester, his native city.

Another new choral work, Belshazzar’s Feast, by William
Walton, with Dennis Noble as soloist, occupied the next thirty-
five minutes. This work has found favour with the choral
societies in the north of England, Malcolm Sargent having
conducted it many times since its inception at this festival.
Like Eric Fogg, Walton was born in Lancashire, Oldham
being his birth-place; he received his early training as
a chorister at Christ Church, Oxford. Later he became an
undergraduate at Christ Church, and studied with Sir Hugh

250 MISCELLANY

Allen. The final work of the evening was the ‘‘Antar’’ Sym-
phony by Rimsky-Korsakov.

On Friday morning, as almost to be expected, the Mass in
B minor by Bach was given, with Elsie Suddaby, Muriel
Brunskill, Hubert Eisdell, Dennis Doble and Keith Falkner
as soloists, indeed, a first class combination of soloists, with
Malcolm Sargent the conductor.

‘The salient quality of the B minor Mass is its wonderful
sublimity. The first chord of the Kyrie takes us into the world
of great and profound emotions; we do not leave it until the
final cadence of the Dona nobis pacem’’, so wrote Schweitzer.

The interval of one and a half hours was made at the end
of the Gloria after the chorus Cum Sancto Spinitu, re-commenc-
ing with the Credo. W. H. Reed the leading violinist played
the violin obligato; he was an artist and delightful in conversa-
tion.

Issued with each programme were carriage regulations in
regard to ““Taking up’’ and ‘“‘Setting down’’, ‘‘Disengaged
Cabs’’, and a note of warning: ‘‘It is particularly requested
that drivers of motor-cars should not make use of their horns,
hooters, etc., in the immediate vicinity of the Town Hall’,
which was signed by the Lord Mayor, Arthur Hawkyard and
the Chief Constable, R. L. Matthews.

On Friday evening the concert was under the baton of Sir
Thomas Beecham, and commenced with Symphony No. 34
in C by Mozart, and was followed by an unaccompanied
double chorus, Fest und Gedenkspriiche by Brahms; Mozart’s
Concerto for Violin and Viola in E flat (K.364) brought the
concert to the interval. The soloists were Albert Sammons and
Lionel Tertis, who were considered two of the finest instru-
mentalists of their day. The accompanied chorale, Jesu, joy
of man’s desiring by Bach, was sung by the chorus; this short
work having now been scored in various ways has become
very popular. Concerto for Pianoforte and Orchestra No. 4
in G, composed by Beethoven in 1805, was performed, the
solo pianist being Dorothy Hesse.

The Grand Messe des morts by Berlioz, conducted by Sir
Thomas Beecham, occupied the first half of Saturday morn-
ing’s concert; this is a stupendous work scored for a large
orchestra, four brass bands, sixteen kettle-drums and a large
chorus, the brass and timpani being required to give full

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 251

effect to the ‘“Tuba mirum spargens sonum’’. The composer’s
specification of the orchestra was: four flutes, two oboes, two
cors anglais, four B flat clarinets, six horns in C, six horns
in E flat, eight bassoons, twenty-five first violins, twenty-five
second violins, twenty violas, twenty violoncellos and eighteen
contra basses, two big drums, three pairs of cymbals and a
gong. ““The four brass bands shall be composed of four
trumpets and four trombones each, and in some cases the addi-
tion of cornets and tubas and shall be placed away from the
main body of singers and players at the four quarters of the
compass’’; and the chorus was to consist of seventy sopranos,
sixty tenors and seventy basses (sopranos and altos mostly
sing the same part).

The festival chorus was three hundred strong, the four brass
bands took up their positions at each corner of the platform
and the sixteen timpani spread across the platform below the
organ. Such was the instrumental force of this concert. Berlioz
was a master of orchestration and instrumentation and he cer-
tainly applied his knowledge in the Mass.

After the lunch interval the Concerto for Pianoforte and
Orchestra No. 2 in C minor, by Rachmaninov, with Nicolas
Orloff as solo pianist, was given under the baton of Dr Malcolm
Sargent, who conducted the two works given in the second
half. In the descriptive notes of the programme, Frank Howes
writes, ‘“Moscow today is the seat of great experiments’’; how
true this was.

The concert finished with the cantata, Wachet Auf by Bach,
with Elsie Suddaby, Francis Russell and Keith Falkner as
soloists. This work has been very popular with choral societies
and has been arranged for the pianoforte under the English
title Sleepers Wake. The first chorale is sung by the tenors to
a dance tune accompaniment, the final chorale being harmon-
ized in four parts with full orchestral accompaniment doubling
the voices, a grand: finale to a wonderful concert.

On Saturday evening, 10 October, Sir Thomas and his
orchestra opened the programme with the Overture to Dive
Meistersinger by Wagner; this is full of themes used in the
opera which are interwoven with amazing dexterity by the
composer.

The Rhapsody for Contralto with Male Voice Chorus by
Brahms, with Astra Desmond as soloist, a contralto with a

|

252 MISCELLANY

wonderful voice of extensive range, was beautifully sung, the
male voice chorus being of a type that is quickly passing away.
There was a sonority and depth from the Huddersfield basses
which gave foundation to a chorus; they used a vernacular
which produced a deep tone, whereas better education and
a different production of speech is changing the timbre of
vocal tone to a lighter shade of singing tone today. To sing
with the old breed of bass singers from the Colne valley was
a grand experience and not to be forgotten. Sir Thomas
Beecham said, ‘‘Nothing can exceed the solid brilliance of the
soprano or the rich sonority of the basses, particularly those
of the Huddersfield district’’.

Three Songs of Farewell by Parry were conducted by the
chorus-master Norman Strafford, being unaccompanied. They
were among the last six motets written by Parry, produced
during the war, and first performed in May 1916 at the Royal
College of Music under the baton of Dr Hugh Allen. Parry
died in 1918.

A Serenade for Strings, Op. 48, by Tchaikovsky, written
about r880, followed the choral items; it is a work in four
movements and is most pleasing to hear.

There followed selections from Act III of Die Meistersinger,
commencing with the Prelude followed by Sachs’s monologue.
The Quintet, one of the most pleasing parts of the opera was
sung by Elsie Suddaby, Muriel Brunskill, Walter Widdop,
Hubert Eisdell and Horace Stevens. The guild choruses and
Walther’s prize song, followed by Sach’s song of joy lead to
the chorus, ‘‘Awake! the dawn of day draws near’’, which
brings the finale to a wonderful climax with the words, ‘‘Hail
Nuremberg’s poet Sachs’’. And so ended the festival on a
festive note under the baton of Sir Thomas Beecham.

After the balance sheet had been produced, it is sad to
relate that there was a deficit and for the first time in the
history of the Musical Festivals there was a call upon the
guarantors of £4 each. There were about two hundred and
eighty guarantors, so the call was for £1,120. Only once again
was a profit made at our musical festivals, and that was in

1947.
Twentieth Festival 1934

The 1934 Festival opened in the morning of Wednesday,
3 October, and continued until Saturday night, 6 October.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 253

Again Sir Thomas Beecham and Dr Malcolm Sargent were
the conductors.

After the National Anthem to the setting of Elgar, excerpts
from Israel in Egypt by Handel were sung, Mary Jarred and
Heddle Nash being the soloists. Sir Thomas revelled in the
chorus for men, The Lord is a Man of War; at one full re-
hearsal he had it sung three times for his own enjoyment.
The Benedicite by Vaughan Williams followed, with Dora
Labette as soloist; this work was first performed in 1930 at
the Leith Hill (Dorking) Festival. The words are altered
slightly from those of the Prayer Book and include a poem
by John Austin, 1613-1669. The Enigma Variations followed,
this work by Elgar, written in 1899, being by now an estab-
lished favourite.

After an hour and a half interval, the concert was resumed
with the performance of a new work by Cyril Scott for chorus,
baritone solo and orchestra, La Belle Dame sans Merci, with
Roy Henderson singing the solos. The concert finished with
the Symphony No. 7 in A by Beethoven.

The evening concert opened with the Requiem by Verdi,
that wonderful work of festival proportions. The soloists were
Ninon Vallin, Edith Furmedge, Frank Titterton and Hermann
Nissen, the London Philharmonic Orchestra having been en-
gaged for the festival. In Part II, an Arabesque by Delius,
with Roy Henderson as soloist, was given its third perform-
ance; it was first heard at Newport (Monmouth) in 1920, then
at the Delius Festival in London in 1929. The Symphony No.
31 in D by Mozart was the final work of the evening.

On Thursday morning, 4 October, the Mass in C minor by
Mozart was conducted by Sir Thomas Beecham, with Dora
Labette, Elsie Suddaby, Heddle Nash and Keith Falkner sing-
ing the solo parts. This was the last of many Masses Mozart
wrote and was composed and performed as a thank-offering
on his marriage which took place on 4 August, 1782.

After the birth of a son in June 1783, his wife accompanied
him to Salzburg where the work was rehearsed on 23 August,
1783, and it was performed two days later in St. Peter’s
Church, his wife Constanze singing the soprano solo part.
This was followed by the Symphony No. 2 in D by Brahms.
After lunch the concert continued with a new work, The Black-
smiths by George Dyson, conducted by the composer. It is

254 MISCELLANY

scored for chorus, orchestra and pianoforte, and Percy
Richardson was the solo pianist. Sir George Dyson is a
Yorkshireman, being born in Halifax in 1883, and was a
scholar of the Royal College of Music from 1g00 to rg04, and
was knighted in 1941. Percy Richardson was organist at St
Chad’s Church, Far Headingley, a position he held for forty-
three years until his death in 1941.

The Symphony in D, Op. 43, by Sibelius closed the morning
concert.

Thursday evening opened with a choral and orchestral
work, Song of the Fates, by Brahms, this being the last size-
able work he wrote for a choir. A Motet for double choir, Lord
let me know mine end by Parry was conducted by the chorus-
master, Norman Strafford. It is one of the six “‘Songs of
Farewell’’ and is dedicated to Sir Hugh P. Allen; the six
were a product of the War.

The Tempest (Op. 109) by Sibelius, which was originally
written in 1926 for a production of Shakespeare’s play at the
Royal Theatre in Copenhagen took forty-five minutes to per-
form. After the interval, Songs of Sunset by Delius were sung
by Olga Haley and Roy Henderson. They consist of eight
poems by Ernest Dowson and are scored for choir and
orchestra and two soloists. The Violin Concerto, No. 4 in D
by Mozart was played, the soloist being Szigeti. Till Eulen-
spiegel by Strauss concluded the concert, which Sir Thomas
conducted.

Friday morning was devoted to Bach, beginning with the
Christmas Oratorio, Parts I and II, and also the first chorus of
Part III, finishing with the Chorale ‘‘Now Vengeance hath
been given’’ from Part VI. The solos were sung by Elsie
Suddaby, Mary Jarred, Francis Russell and William Parsons,
Dr Malcolm Sargent conducting.

After the interval, Cantata No. 104, Thou Guide of Israel
was sung, the soloists being Francis Russell and William
Parsons. The Brandenburg Concerto No. 1 in F followed, after
which the choir had the final note in Sing ye to the Lord, a
motet in three sections for two choirs.

More ‘‘Bach’’ heralded the evening concert when Cantata
No. 80, A stronghold sure, was sung by the choir, with Elsie
Suddaby as soloist. This noble hymn is well known under the
German words Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, the bold tune

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 255

fitting the words. The Pianoforte Concerto No. 2 in B flat by
Brahms was played by Schnabel. Brahms dedicated this
concerto to his old teacher Eduard Marxsen in 1881.

The Suite No. 3 in G by Tchaikovsky followed, which the
composer wrote within six weeks and was performed under
Von Bulow at St Petersburg on 12 January, 1885. This work
was very popular with English music-lovers and can be en-
joyed by most people, being full of melody. The Choral Dances
from Prince Igor by Borodin were sung, being styled “‘Dance
of the Polovtsy with Chorus’’. Again the honours of conductor
were shared by Beecham and Sargent.

The morning concert of Saturday, 6 October, opened with
Liszt’s Christus (omitting No. 12). The soloists were Ninon
Vallin, Gladys Ripley, Frank Titterton and Hermann Nissen.
This is the largest of the composer’s choral works, which took
him ten years to complete, and is scored for chorus, soli and
full orchestra.

The symphonic poem for orchestra, Paris, by Delius, was
performed, and was followed by Haydn’s Symphony No. 97
in C, one of twelve written for Johann Peter Salomon
of London between 1701-2.

The final concert on Saturday night opened with Handel’s
Chandos Anthem No, 5, with Isobel Baillie and Francis
Russell as soloists. The Suite in C by Bach followed; then the
recitative and aria, ‘‘Monologue of Boris’’ (from Bons
Godounov) by Moussorgsky, sung by Keith Falkner. For the
rest of the evening, Wagner held sway, the Introduction to
Act III, the ‘‘Dance of Apprentices’’ and ‘‘Procession of the
Masters’’ from The Mastersingers finishing the first half;
finally Lohengrin, Act II, Scenes 3, 4 and 5 with an array of
soloists (Joan Cross, Constance Willis, Arthur Cox, Keith
Falkner and Percy Heming), with the fine singing of the chorus
and the grand orchestral playing under Sir Thomas Beecham,
brought a wonderful climax to the Festival of 1934.

During 1934, England lost by death three of her famous
composers, Elgar, Delius and Holst.

Twenty-first Festival 1937

The Festival of 1937 commenced on Tuesday morning, 5
October, and continued to Saturday, 9 October, but there was
no morning concert on Thursday or Saturday. It seems as if

2560 MISCELLANY

the festival was losing some social significance. The opening
concert commenced with the National Anthem to the setting
by Elgar followed by the Missa Solennis or Mass in D by
Beethoven, this work taking ninety minutes to perform. An
interval of fifteen minutes was given, whereas in former years
an hour and a half had been allowed for lunch; but now the
orchestral players had demanded playing time to be of shorter
duration, and when the concert was resumed the “‘Dettingen’’
Te Deum by Handel, a short work taking forty minutes only
was performed. The soloists for both works were Isobel Baillie,
Mary Jarred, Heddle Nash and Keith Falkner. Sir Thomas
Beecham conducted.

On Tuesday evening, Sir Thomas Beecham and Dr Malcolm
Sargent shared the baton, the concert commencing with
a Pianoforte Concerto (Op. 39) by Busoni, the solo pianist
being Egon Petri, with a male voice chorus in the last move-
ment.

The Symphony No. 4 in B flat major by Beethoven was
followed by the tone poem The origin of fire by Sibelius,
written for baritone solo and male voice chorus, Dennis Noble
singing the solos. The concert finished with the Variations on
a theme by Haydn (‘St Anthony’’ Chorale) by Brahms.

On Wednesday morning the Petite Messe Solennelle by
Rossini was sung, the soloists being Ina Souez, Astra Desmond,
Heddle Nash and Dennis Noble. The Symphony No. 2 in B
flat by Roussel was followed by the first performance of a new
choral work, In Honour of the City of London by William
Walton.

On Wednesday evening the Coronation Pianoforte Concerto
in D major (K.537) by Mozart was the opening item, with
Louis Kentner the pianist.

A choral work, The Childhood of Chnst, Parts I, II and III,
by Berlioz was given, with the soloists Isobel Baillie, Steuart
Wilson, Roy Henderson and Robert Easton. This in parts is
a most beautiful work but rarely heard.

On Thursday evening, a choral work, Jonah, was given its
first public performance and was conducted by the composer,
Lennox Berkeley; Parry Jones and Roy Henderson were the
soloists, and included in the chorus were the boys from Leeds
Parish Church choir and some from the Grammar School. The
Symphony in A major (K.201) by Mozart, a choral work, the

LEEDS MUSICAL. FESTIVALS 257

Mass No, 2 in E minor by Bruckner, and the Coronation March
by Walton were performed, the last being a new work. The
concert was conducted by Sir Thomas Beecham, as was the
next concert on Friday morning, which consisted of one major
choral work, The Passion according to St Matthew by Bach,
the boys from the Leeds. Parish Church and some from the
Grammar School augmenting the Chorus. The soloists were
Elsie Suddaby, Astra Desmond, Steuart Wilson, Jan Van Der
Gucht, Keith Falkner and Robert Easton, Miss Jean Hamilton
at the harpsichord.

Dr Malcolm Sargent conducted the Friday evening concert
after the first item, which was a choral work, Wandrer’s Sturm-
lied, by Richard Strauss, conducted by Norman Strafford the
chorus-master; Strafford was a Leeds-born musician, who as
a boy in his early teens was organist at Wintoun Street Baptist
Chapel, later becoming organist of Headingley Wesleyan
Church and music-master at Woodhouse Grove School. He
had been a pupil of H. A. Fricker and for many years was
pianist for the Leeds Philharmonic Society. For a short period
he was conductor of the Leeds Choral Union. He was organist
at Hull Parish Church, until shortly before his death on 23
February, 1957, aged 67 years.

The concert continued with the Violin Concerto in D (Op.
61) by Beethoven, Adolf Busch being the soloist. A symphonic
study, Falstaff by Elgar, was followed by a cantata, Dona
Nobis Pacem by Vaughan Williams, with Elsie Suddaby and
Roy Henderson as soloists.

The final concert on the Saturday evening opened with the
Symphony No. 4 in E minor by Brahms, which took forty
minutes to perform and was followed by a choral work, Te
Deum by Verdi, which took twenty minutes. After the interval
of fifteen minutes, the Pzanoforte Concerto in A minor by
Schumann, with Myra Hess as pianist, was played; then A
Short Freemasons’ Cantata by Mozart for tenor and bass solo
(with chorus for men’s voices), Parry Jones and Robert Easton
being the soloists.

The ‘‘Spinning Chorus’’ from The Flying Dutchman by
Wagner was sung by the sopranos and contraltos of the chorus,
the concert finishing with the ‘‘Coronation Scene’’ from Boris
Gadounov by Moussorgsky, the soloist being Keith Falkner.
The festival closed as it began, with the National Anthem, the

258 MISCELLANY

last half of the concert taking just under one hour. All the
seats for this concert had been sold many weeks before the
event.

It was at this festival that the great Sir Thomas Beecham
criticised the Town Hall organ, “‘a noble looking instrument
neveran:tune’’.

Before another festival could be arranged, Munich and
World War II had broken upon us, and so the triennial cycle
was again interrupted and ten years elapsed before the next
festival.

Twenty-second Festival 1947

In 1947 the Festival commenced on Tuesday, 7 October,
and continued each day to Saturday, 11 October, concerts
being omitted on the mornings of Thursday and Saturday,
following the pattern of the 1937 Festival.

The conductors were Mr John Barbirolli and Dr Malcolm
Sargent, with the Hallé and Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestras.
The chorus-master was Herbert Bardgett, the organist Dr Mel-
ville Cook, and the chorus pianists Glennie Angus and Ernest
Cooper. The Hallé Band played for the first four concerts and
the Liverpool Philharmonic the last four.

The festival opened with the Elgar setting of the National
Anthem, then the choral work, These things shall be, by John
Ireland,** with Parry Jones as soloist; this work was first
performed at a B.B:C. Symphony ‘Concert on 1 December
1937. Te Deum by Verdi was conducted by the chorus-master;
this work had been written in 1897 and first performed in Holy
Week, 1808, and conducted by the world-famous Arturo
Toscanini, who was then a young man. The final work of the
morning was the Symphony No. 2 in E flat by Elgar. It is
dedicated to the memory of King Edward VII and was designed
early in 1910 to be a loyal tribute. The evening concert opened
with the Symphony No. 34 in C (K.338) by Mozart, which
was written in August 1780 at Salzburg. It was followed by
the Pianoforte Concerto in B flat No. 27, also by Mozart; the
solo pianist being Denis Matthews. This work was finished
January 1791, eleven months before Mozart’s death.

1 John Ireland was born in Manchester in 1879. He came to Leeds during his
boyhood, and lived with a Mrs Phillips at 1 Balmoral Terrace, Headingley. He
attended Leeds Grammar School in 1893 and from there went to the Royal College
of Music, London, where he studied under Frederick Cliffe, and later, under Sir
Charles Stanford.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 259

The Symphony No. 9 (Choral) by Beethoven gave the
chorus their only part in the concert. (This work was begun
in 1817, but the Mass in D was composed before the ninth
Symphony was finished in 1823, and performed 7 May, 1824.)
The soloists were Gladys Ripley, Parry Jones and Harold
Williams. Ten years had elapsed since the last festival and
new artistes had come into prominence.

On Wednesday morning the concert was fully choral when
the Requiem by Verdi was performed, Gladys Ripley, Ljuba
Weylisch , Parry Jones and Tom Williams taking the solo
parts; this great work had been heard at the 1913 Festival,
when Nikisch conducted.

The overture Euryanthe, by Weber, was the initial work
given on Wednesday evening; this was followed by the
Concerto for Viola and Orchestra by William Walton, the
soloist being William Primrose. It was written in 1928-9 and
first performed at a Promenade Concert on 3 October, 1929.
Daphms and Chloe by Ravel brought the concert to the
interval.

The Symphony No. 1 in C minor by Brahms was performed,
a work first heard in 1876. Cambridge offered Brahms a de-
gree but he did not care to cross the water, and offered this
symphony to represent him. It gave a delightful finish to the
appearance of the Hallé Orchestra at this festival.

On Thursday evening a Requiem by Fauré was sung, with
Ena Mitchell and Harold Williams as soloists. Fauré’s father
died in 1885 and he wrote the requiem in 1886-7. It was
followed by a Violin Concerto by Sibelius, the work being
commenced in 1903 and finished in 1905; the soloist was
Maurice Raskin. After an interval of fifteen minutes, the
chorus and orchestra gave the Sea Symphony by Vaughan
Williams, the two soloists being Ena Mitchell and Harold
Williams; this work was given its first performance at the
Leeds Musical Festival in roto.

As if by custom, the Friday morning was given to that great
work by Bach, the Mass in B minor, conducted by Malcolm
Sargent, with the Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra and a
quartette of soloists well-chosen — Elsie Suddaby, Kathleen
Ferrier, Eric Greene and Trevor Anthony.

Friday evening opened with the Variations and Fugue on
a theme of Purcell by Benjamin Britten, a work written in

260 MISCELLANY

1945 for a Ministry of Education film, to acquaint children
with the instruments of a modern orchestra.

A Pianoforte Concerto by Delius, with the pianist Moisei-
witsch, was the second new item to be introduced at this
festival. The original version of this work was written in 1897
and was first played at Elberfield in 1904. Apparently Delius
was dissatisfied with the composition as he revised and re-
modelled it, the second version being played at a Promenade’
Concert in October 1907 by Theodor Szanto to whom it is
dedicated.

Another work not previously heard at the Leeds Festival,
Symphony No. 1 by Shostakovich, was played at this con-
cert. It was written in 1925 whilst the composer was still a
student at the Leningrad Conservatoire. The concert ended
with the choral work Belshazzar’s Feast by Walton, with
Dennis Noble as soloist; this work was given in 1931 when Dr
Malcolm Sargent first conducted it.

Saturday night being the popular concert of the festival,
the chorus would enjoy their final sing in two works well
known to those who attend choral concerts, first the Te Deum
by Berlioz, with James Johnson as soloist. It was commissioned
for the Paris Exhibition in 1855. Boys from the Leeds Parish
Church took part in this performance. A concerto for Violon-
cello and Orchestra in B minor by Dvorak followed, with
Pierre Fournier as ’cellist. This work was written between
November 1894 and February 1895.

Selections from Act III (including the lovely quintette) of
Die Meistersinger, an old favourite, occupied the last forty-
five minutes of the festival, the soloists being Victoria Sladen,
Janet Howe, James Johnston, Norman Walker and Ronald
Hill.

So ended the Festival of 1947.

After the accounts were audited there was a profit of £500
which was given to the Medical Charities of Leeds, bringing
the final total to more than £25,000.

Concert Pitch

It will be remembered that in 1883 Sir Arthur Sullivan had
asked that the Town Hall organ should be raised to the Broad-
wood Philharmonic pitch, and the reply was that the right
pitch was a matter of opinion. During the nineteenth century
there were three notable attempts to secure standard pitch.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 201

The first was made in France in 1859 when legal sanction was
given for a standard musical pitch which became known as
the diapason normal.

The second attempt in Vienna was made in 1885 when a
congress was held to adopt the French pitch which became
known in England as Continental pitch. Great Britain took no
part in the congress but the controversy had persisted since
1813, and the standard of pitch had gradually risen from
424 cycles per second to 455 cycles in 1874, a singer experienc-
ing difficulty when singing to an instrument tuned to the English
Concert pitch against one tuned to Continental pitch, since
the English pitch was approximately a semitone higher, and
therefore middle C in English pitch would be equivalent to C
sharp in Continental.

After a conference in 1895, a new Philharmonic pitch was
adopted which was put into use in 1896 and so lowered the
pitch of concert performances in this country, and three years
later, that of pianofortes. The musician and the scientist had
combined in securing the adoption of a selected pitch.

The pitch was known as A 439 and the Town Hall organ
was tuned to that pitch by Messrs Abbot and Smith, organ
builders of Leeds.*?

In 1938, there was a conference to discuss an international
standard pitch in which musicians, organ builders and scientists
took part, which resulted in the agreement of international
pitch, the Institute of British Standards issuing an official
publication on the subject. So A in the treble stave is tuned
to 440 cycles per second, the B.B.C. broadcasting a note of
standard frequency each day just before the start of the Third
Programme.

No longer do sopranos sing eight bars of top A sharp in the
Beethoven Choral Symphony but sing A as the composer con-
Celved At.

When the Yorkshire Symphony Orchestra was formed, the
Town Hall organ was tuned to A 440, the international standard
pitch.

Twenty-third Festival 1950
Those who had the good fortune to attend the Festival of
1950 will never forget some of the high lights of this festival.

% The pitchfork made for the purpose in 1896 complete with hammer has been
presented to the Thoresby Society by Mr Wm. Hollings Smith.

262 MISCELLANY

Again the pattern was changed from that of former festivals,
the first concert being arranged for Saturday evening,
30 September, followed by concerts every evening until the
following Saturday, 7 October, and one morning concert only,
which was given on the Friday of 6 October. Three orchestras
were engaged, the Royal Philharmonic, the Hallé and the
Yorkshire Symphony, the conductors being Sir Thomas
Beecham, Sir John Barbirolli and Mr Maurice Miles. Beecham
opened the festival with the National Anthem to Elgar’s setting,
followed by the choral anthem Zadok the Priest, one of four
written by Handel for the Coronation of George II in 1727
and sung: before the anointing of the King. The Mass in A flat
major by Schubert was followed with Symphony No. 40 in
G minor, by Mozart, which is dated ‘‘Vienna, 25 July, 1788’’.
The Dance Rhapsody (No. 1) by Delius, which was written
1907/8, concluded the concert.

The concert on Monday evening opened with the Petite
Messe Solennelle by Rossini, the soloists being Isobel Baillie,
Marjorie Thomas, Heddle Nash*’ and Bruce Dargavel. In Part
II the Rhapsody Espana by Chabrier was followed by the
Violin Concerto in D major by Brahms with Gioconda de Vito
as soloist. The Dance of the Seven Veils (from Salome) by
Richard Strauss ended the concert conducted by Sir Thomas
Beecham. Tuesday evening opened with Stabat Mater by
Dvorak, with Gwen Catley, Kathleen Ferrier, Trevor Jones
and Trevor Anthony as soloists. This work won for the com-
poser world-wide fame, It was composed in 1876 but it was
not until 1882 that it was first performed in England. In 1895
it was heard in Leeds.

The second half opened with the overture to La Scala di
Seta by Rossini, which was followed by Cortége and Aur de
Danse by Debussy; finally, Slavonic Rhapsody No. 3 in A
flat major by Dvorak brought the concert, conducted by
Beecham,** to a close.

On Wednesday evening, the Yorkshire Symphony Orchestra
conducted by Maurice Miles opened the concert with a Motet
for Chorus and Orchestra, Op. 55, Morning Watch, by Rubbra,
a short work commissioned by the Musicians’ Benevolent Fund
and first performed at the Albert Hall 22 November, 1946.

Ss Heddle Nash, the English tenor, was born in London in 1806 and died there
14 August, 1961. His performance in the role of David in the Mastersingers will
long be remembered by opera lovers.

‘Sir Thomas Beecham died 8 March, 1961, aged 81 years.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 263

The Symphony No. 6 in E minor by Vaughan Williams brought
the concert to the interval.

After the interval an unusual work was performed, King
David, by Honegger, a choral work with a narrator, a part
taken by Margaretta Scott. Honegger was born in France in
1892, though a Swiss by birth.

On Thursday evening, the Hallé Orchestra took the plat-
form, commencing with the Dettingen Te Deum by Handel,
which was conducted by the chorus-master, Herbert Bardgett.
Three Nocturnes by Debussy followed, then the Pianoforte
Concerto in C minor by Mozart, with Denis Matthews as solo
pianist, the conductor being Sir John Barbirolli. Part II con-
sisted of the Alto Rhapsody by Brahms, in which the soloist
was Kathleen Ferrier, and the Symphony No. 5 in E flat by
Sibelius.

On Friday morning Maurice Miles had the baton, the first
work being Hymn of Jesus by Holst, a difficult work for even
a good choral society; it was conducted by Herbert Bardgett
on this occasion. Pianoforte Concerto No. 4 in G major by
Beethoven, the solo pianist Claudio Arrau, concluded the first
half, after which Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G
major followed; the Symphony No. 2 by Brahms finished an
excellent concert:

In the evening of Friday, 6 October, the ‘‘Egmont’’ Over-
ture by’ Beethoven was played by the Hallé Orchestra with
Sir John Barbirolli their conductor. An Oboe Concerto
followed, the soloist Evelyn Rothwell (Lady Barbirolli) play-
ing this work by Strauss. The Symphony No. 8&8 in G, the
‘“‘Letter V’’ by Haydn finished the first half. Part II com-
prised a new work by Benjamin Britten conducted by the
composer; this was the Spring Symphony, a work which was
first performed in Amsterdam in July 1949. It is scored for
three solo voices, mixed choir, boys’ voices and a large
orchestra; the soloists were Joan Cross, Anne Wood and Peter
Pears, the Festival Chorus being augmented by one hundred
boys’ voices. This is a most unusual work.

On Saturday evening, Elgar’s masterpiece, The Dream
of Gerontius, was conducted by Sir John Barbirolli with Kath-
leen Ferrier (the Angel), Richard Lewis and Novakovski as
soloists. This work was first performed at the Birmingham
Festival, 3 October, 1900, just fifty years before.

264 MISCELLANY

The rehearsal under Sir John in the afternoon had been
wonderful, but the evening performance was unforgettable.
Kathleen Ferrier and Richard Lewis both sang without a score.
Kathleen Ferrier had first sung the ““Dream’’ at a Philharm-
onic Concert under Sir Edward Bairstow, when Roy Hender-
son her tutor was in the audience listening to her performance.
On that occasion she sang from memory, but her greatest
achievement was at this festival in rt950. An enthusiastic
audience had lined the corridor of the Town Hall, awaiting
her departure, when she came along on the arm of Sir John
Barbirolli. She died after a long illness on 8 October, 1953, at
the early age of forty-one years, three years within a day of
singing at the Leeds Festival. Her passing was a great loss to
the world of music.

When the balance sheet was completed it was established
that there was a loss, and a token call was made upon the
Guarantors of £1 each, so that all debts should be cleared.

Twenty-fourth Festival 1953

For the Festival of 1953 the Committee were unable to
form a chorus, but the difficulty was overcome by inviting
the eminent choral societies of the cities of Leeds, Bradford
and Sheffield and the Huddersfield Choral Society and their
neighbouring Colne Valley Male Voice Choir to sing at the
Festival. Again the pattern was changed, the concerts taking
place from Saturday, 3 October, to Saturday, ro October, in the
evenings only, with an extra on Sunday afternoon, 4 October.
There were five smaller concerts which took place at the Civic
Hall, Temple Newsam House and Harewood House during
the mornings of Tuesday to Saturday of the Festival Week.
There was also special music at the Parish Church from Sun-
day, 10 October, Saturday excluded. On Saturday, 3 October,
the London Symphony Orchestra with the Leeds Philharmonic
Society opened the Festival with the National Anthem. The
Orchestra played the Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis,
by Vaughan Williams. A motet (unaccompanied), Lord Thou
hast been our refuge, by Arnold Cooke; this short work was
conducted by Alan Wicks. The composer was born at Gomer-
sal, near Leeds, in 1906, and wrote the work for the Hoving-
ham Festival of 1952 when it was sung by members of the
Leeds Philharmonic Society and conducted by Alan Wicks.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 265

An Oratorio, Sancta Civitas, by Vaughan Williams,*’ with
the soloists Peter Pears and Bruce Boyce, was conducted by
Josef Krips, after which followed a memorable performance
of the Symphony in C major by Schubert also conducted by
Josef Krips.

On Sunday afternoon, an Orchestral Concert was given by
the London Symphony Orchestra, which was conducted by
Krips, commencing with the overture by Walton, “‘Scapino’’,
followed by the Pianoforte Concerto No. 2 by Alan Raws-
thorne, the solo pianist being Clifford Curzon, A Serenade for
Tenor, Horn and Strings by Britten with the tenor Peter Pears,
and the solo horn John Burden was performed, the concert
closing with the Symphony No, 4 in D minor by Schumann.

On Monday evening, the London Symphony Orchestra and
the Sheffield Philharmonic Chorus, gave the Coronation Mass
(K.317) by Mozart with Jennifer Vyvyan, Helene Bouvier,
Richard Lewis and Owen Brannigan as soloists, and Dr
Melville Cook at the organ. The Symphony No. 2 by Mahler
with the same soprano and contralto as in the Mass ended the
concert, which had been conducted by Josef Krips.

On Tuesday evening, the Yorkshire Symphony Orchestra
and the Leeds Philharmonic Society gave the oratorio The
Apostles by Elgar, which was conducted by Sir Malcolm
Sargent. The soloists were Elsie Morison, Marjorie Thomas,
William Herbert, John Cameron, Gordon Clinton and Norman
Walker.

On Wednesday evening, the London Symphony Orchestra
conducted by Josef Krips, with the Colne Valley Male Voice
Choir in the second half, gave the concert. The tone Poem,
Don Juan by Richard Strauss was followed by the Pranoforte
Concerto in D minor (K.466) by Mozart, with Clifford Curzon
the pianist. An Opera-Oratorio Oedipus Rex, by Stravinsky
occupied the second half with Helene Bouvier, Peter Pears,
Bruce Dargavel, Frederick Dalberg, William McAlpine and
Geoffrey Lewis as soloists; this work took fifty minutes to
perform.

On Thursday evening, 8 October, A Mass of Life by Delius
was given by the Huddersfield Choral Society with the York-
shire Symphony Orchestra, the work being conducted by Sir
Malcolm Sargent. The soloists taking part being Elizabeth

Ralph Vaughan Williams died 26 August, 1958, aged 85 years. His ashes
were buried in Westminster Abbey in the north aisle behind the choir.

266 MISCELLANY

Schwarzkopf, Marjorie Thomas, Richard Lewis and John
Cameron. The work is a musical setting to Nietzsche’s
philosophy. Delius, the Bradford-born composer had a varied
life, and died in 1934; a short while before he died, after
Beecham had conducted one of his works at a Leeds Festival,
Sir Thomas brought Delius on to the platform. He presented
a very tragic appearance, being crippled and blind after a
long paralytic illness.

The concert on Friday evening was given by the Yorkshire
Symphony Orchestra and the Bradford Festival Choral Society
and was conducted by Maurice Miles. The overture, Abu
Hassan by Weber was followed by Sinfonia Concertante for
Violin and Viola (K.364) by Mozart, with Norbert Brainin
(violin) and Peter Schidlof (viola) as soloists.

The concert aria, Aura, Che Intorno (K.431) by Mozart,
was sung by Julius Patzak, and was followed by Symphony
No. 1 in C by Beethoven. A choral work, the Glagolitic Mass
by Janacek, with the soloists Eleanor Houston, Joan Gray,
Julius Patzak, Frederick Dalberg, was sung, with Melville
Cook at the organ.

The final concert, on Saturday evening, 10 October, opened
with the tone poem Tintagel by Arnold Bax, which was put
in the programme by Maurice Miles in place of the “‘Master-
singers’’ Overture, as a memorial to the Master of the Queen’s
Musick, whose sudden death was announced Sunday, 4
October. A Concerto for Orchestra by Bartok followed, this
work being first performed in New York, 1 December, 1944.

Part II brought the grand finale to the concert and to the
festival when excerpts from /svael in Egpyt by Handel were
sung by the Huddersfield Choral Society, with the Yorkshire
Symphony Orchestra conducted by Malcolm Sargent. The
soloists were Jennifer Vyvyan and Richard Lewis, with Mel-
ville Cook at the organ. To Handel be the praise for giving
to England the concert oratorio.

The loss on this festival was more than £6,000 and the
call upon guarantors was for the full amount of £10 each.

The original motive of the Leeds Musical Festivals was to
give the profits to medical charities and to promote the cause
of music of the highest character and its efficient rendering,
and the encouragement of original and chiefly English
composition.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 267

Fortunately, the medical institutions and hospitals are now
State-aided and are not dependent upon voluntary subscrip-
tions.

The old four-days’ festival has departed and much social
splendour has vanished with it.

The Centenary Festival 1958

The Leeds Centenary Musical Festival was arranged to
commemorate the opening of the Town Hall and the first
Musical Festival of 1858.

The Town Hall was opened by Queen Victoria, and to give
the Commemoration Festival the highest honour possible,
Queen Elizabeth II accepted the invitation of the Lord Mayor
to honour it by her presence. A festival chorus had been formed
in 1957 and the works to be sung were rehearsed for more
than a year.

The Chorus Director was Herbert Bardgett, George Stead
training the Huddersfield section. George Richards was
chorus pianist at Leeds, and Keith Swallow the pianist
at Huddersfield. The organist was Donald Hunt, organist and
choir-master of Leeds Parish Church. The Philharmonia
Orchestra was engaged for the occasion. Otto Klemperer the
renowned interpreter and conductor of the works of Beethoven
had been engaged, but on the eve of the festival he fell ill and
Jascha Horenstein was approached instead and consented to
fill the breach and conduct the works assigned to Klemperer.
The first concert was on Saturday evening, 11 October, and
opened with the Mass in D by Beethoven, the soloists being
Teresa Stitch-Randall, Norma Procter, Peter Pears and Kim
Borg.

A difference from former festivals was the holding of a
concert at 8 p.m. on Sunday which took the form of a violin
and pianoforte recital, the performers being the celebrated
Yehudi Menuhin, violinist, and Hephzibah Menuhin, pianist.
The concert began with the Sonata in G, Op. 96, by Beethoven
which was the last sonata he composed for violin and piano-
forte and was written in 1812 for the famous Pierre Rode one
of the leading violinists of his time.

Then followed the Sonata No. 3 in A minor by Georges
Enesco. The composer was born in 1881 of Rumanian parents
at Liveni in the heart of Moldavia and went to Vienna when

268 MISCELLANY

very young to study music and the violin, leaving there for
Paris at the age of thirteen and remaining at the Conserva-
toire until he was sixteen. This brilliant youth became tutor
to Yehudi Menuhin.

The third and final item was the Sonata No. 2 in D minor
by Schumann, who wrote three sonatas for violin and piano-
forte after he was forty years old. Joachim considered this
composition among the best of his day.

On Monday evening, 13 October, the Festival and Com-
memoration Sentences, Op. 109, by Brahms was conducted
by the Chorus Master, Herbert Bardgett. The symphonic study
in C minor, Falstaff by Elgar followed, and after the interval
a new work commissioned for the festival, The Vision of Judge-
ment was performed, the composer being Peter Racine Fricker
who was born in London, 5 September, 1920. The soloists
were Claire Watson and John Dobson, and the conductor John
Pritchard.

Tuesday was Beethoven night, and Rafael Kubelik con-
ducted, the concert being wholly orchestral, opening with
the overture, The Consecration of the House, which was written
for the inauguration of Vienna’s Josephstadter Theatre on
3 October, 1822. The Symphony No. 6 in F (‘‘Pastoral’’) was
followed by Symphony No. 7 in A, the composition of which
was finished by Beethoven in the spring of 1812.

Wednesday evening was left free so as to give those wishing
to see and hear the opera Samson by Handel the opportunity
of attending the Grand Theatre. The Queen was present at the
Theatre the same evening.

On Thursday night, 16 October, the B.B.C. Symphony
Orchestra was conducted by Rudolf Schwarz, the concert
opening with the Symphony No. 4 in C minor by Schubert
(known as the ‘‘Tragic’’), which was written in the spring
of 1816. In the first performance of A Nocturne for Tenor and
small orchestra composed by Benjamin Britten, the tenor part
was sung by Peter Pears. The poems of this work are taken
from eight English poets. Following the interval, Quattro
Pezzi Sacri by Verdi were sung by the chorus with the soloist
Honor Sheppard, the first being the Ave Maria for voices only,
the second Stabat Mater for chorus and orchestra; Laudi Alla
Vergine Maria for a choir of ladies’ voices only; and the fourth
the Te Deum as in the Book of Common Prayer.

LEEDS MUSICAL FESTIVALS 269

Friday evening opened with the first performance in England
of the Te Deum by Marc-Antoine Charpentier, conducted by
Rudolf Schwarz, the soloists being Jennifer Vyvyan, Honor
Sheppard, Norma Procter, William McAlpine and Geraint
Evans, The Te Deum opened with a prelude for orchestra,
organ and trumpet in the key of D. It was followed by a
Concerto for Violoncello and Orchestra by Kenneth Leighton,
a Wakefield musician born in 1929.

After the interval came Symphony of Psalms by Stravinsky
from Psalms 38, 39 and 150 in the Douai Bible.

On Saturday evening the 18 October, the concert was
attended by H.M. the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, the
overture Oberon by Weber being the first item to be played
by the B.B.C. Orchestra under their conductor Rudolf
Schwarz. Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen by Mahler was
sung by Teresa Berganza, mezzo-soprano. The next work was
Pianoforte Concerto in E flat (K.482) by Mozart, with the
pianist Annie Fischer whose performance was one of sheer
delight.

The final dramatic Cantata was Belshazzar’s Feast by
William Walton which was first produced at the Leeds Festival
in 1931. And so the Festival of 1958 closed on a triumphant
note:

‘Then sing aloud to God our strength
Make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob.’’

Of the Town Hall the Queen said, ‘‘What a noble hall’’.

Afterwards the Queen and the Duke went to the Civic Hall
where many of the performers were presented to her. It was
impossible to invite the whole chorus to the reception, but a
representative few of each voice had the honour of being
present.

The Director-General of this Festival was Lord Harewood.
Musically the Festival was a success, but financially the
Festival Committee had overspent, and a call was made on
the guarantors for fifty per cent of the sum each had
cuaranteed.

In 1858 the Musical Festivals were instituted to aid medical
charities; nowadays the charitable assist the Musical Festivals.
One reason for the losses sustained is the diminished seating
accommodation available. In 1858, 3,000 people crowded the

270 MISCELLANY

hall, but for safety reasons less than half that number are now
permitted. This naturally has an adverse effect upon the re-
ceipts and now guarantors are needed to ensure the success
of the Festivals.

Obituaries

HARRY PEMBERTON

HARRY PEMBERTON, our late Treasurer, became a member of
the Thoresby Society in 1932, and its Honorary Treasurer in
1933, a post he held for a period of twenty-two years until his
retirement in 1955. In appreciation of his valued and faithful
service he was made a Vice-President at the end of his term of
office.

He was a regular attender at Council Meetings and Lectures,
and with his wife joined in most of the Excursions.

He joined the London City and Midland Bank Ltd. (now
the Midland Bank Ltd.) in May 1899, retiring in March 1946
after a period of service of forty-seven years. He spent the first
few years at the North Street Branch, and then went to the
chief Leeds Branch in Park Row, until the closing of those
premises. When the business was transferred to the present
premises in City Square, he became Chief Security Clerk and
District Staff Superintendent.

At the Bank he became keenly interested in the history of
banking, and amassed a considerable fund of information relat-
ing to early banking activities in Leeds. The result was a paper
on ‘‘Two Hundred Years of Banking in Leeds’’, which was
read before the Society in November 1953 and published in
Volume XLVI of our Publications. He died before the Volume
was issued but had the satisfaction of seeing the proofs and
knowing that the work was being printed.

He was a most faithful member of the Methodist Church,
and a regular attender at the Eldon Church, Woodhouse Lane,
Leeds, in the Brunswick Methodist Circuit, where he held every
office open to a layman, being specially interested in the Sunday
School and financial affairs of Church and Circuit.

GEORGE EDWARD KIRK
GEORGE EDWARD KIRK, born at Burley in Leeds on Io Septem-
ber, 1886, was the only child of Edward Alfred Kirk, who
was himself the third son of Thomas Kirk of Doncaster. The
eldest son, John, was librarian at Doncaster; and the second,
Henry, a priest for many years well-known in the diocese of

292 MISCELLANY

London, was always a favourite and helpful uncle. George’s
father became totally deaf at the age of seven. Educated at
the Deaf Institute at Doncaster he became an assistant-teacher
there, and in 1883 the headmaster of the Leeds School for
Deaf Children, a post which he held until his death in 1924.
At the age of twelve George was admitted to the Church Middle
Class School in Vernon Road. On 22 December, 1903, when
he was seventeen, he left school, as he thought. Two days later
Uncle Henry arrived for a short Christmas visit, and urged
him to think of a university course at Durham, leading to
ordination. He went back to the school for special tuition in
Greek, Latin and Mathematics.

He had always been a somewhat delicate child, and in March,
1904, he had a sharp attack of illness diagnosed as inflamma-
tion of the heart. In the autumn the family moved to Whitkirk,
where he was to.make his home for the remaining fifty-six
years of his life. He left school finally in July, 1906, and hoped
to begin his course at Durham in October. But in September
he broke down again with heart trouble and all plans had to
be abandoned for another year. His diary for 1906 ends —
“a year of deep and maintained joy in religion, in wider and
blessed friendships and in more interesting study’’. Other times,
other forms of expression; but in his diaries we may perhaps
trace a kinship with Ralph Thoresby. In 1907, a year of ill-
health, he had to abandon on medical advice his hope of going
to Durham, and so his hope of serving in the ordained ministry
of the Church. But as a layman he gave splendid service to
the Church in Leeds and neighbourhood during the whole of
the remainder of his life, and especially as a licensed lay-reader,
to which office he was licensed in 1911 and in which he served
for forty-five years.

In r912 he became assistant-master in his father’s school,
where he served until 1929. His correspondence with the deaf
children after they had left the school indicates very clearly
that he regarded his work there as that of a pastor as much as
of a teacher. For a time in 1931 he did occasional work for
the Yorkshire Archaeological Society, and he served as that
Society’s librarian from 1933 to 1938. That was the last salaried
post which he held, though for a time he acted professionally
as a research worker.

He had been a member of the Thoresby Society since
October, 1918, and in 1940 he undertook the honorary librarian-

OBITUARIES 273

ship, which he held for the rest of his life. The Society has
been blessed in the past, as it is blessed in the present, with
members who have rejoiced to give their best in its service,
but few could claim to excel or even to rival his devotion. He
was regular in his attendance even on days when the walk
from the station was a heavy task for his sick body, and the
meticulous care with which he carried on the work places the
Society for ever in his debt.

Meanwhile he was producing over the years not only
a number of valuable essays, but also a very notable series
of parochial histories. Concerning his own parish of Whitkirk
he wrote a book of considerable length, and some twenty-seven
other parishes were privileged to receive records which, if on
a somewhat smaller scale, were of equal interest and of the
same scholarly accuracy. In a letter, written in 1937 to acknow-
ledge the receipt of the Thorp Arch history, Professor Hamilton
Thompson described this series as being of very great value,
and he added the comment that future historians might well
be compelled regretfully to dispel a general superstition that
the author’s name was responsible for such place-names as
Kirk Deighton and Kirk Fenton! It is not perhaps widely
known that in general these books were published at the
author’s charges and then generously presented to the parishes
concerned, who received all the profit from their sale.

His life-long interest in things historical was happily acknow-
ledged in 1957, when the University of Leeds gave him the
honorary degree of Master of Arts.

After his parents had died he lived quite alone. Some one
came in to ‘‘do for him’’, but when she became unable to
continue the work she was not replaced. He worked and cooked
for himself (so far as he troubled to do so) in his small kitchen.
The remainder of the house was mostly library.

On 16 March, 1960, he revised the final proof of his last
book, put his signature upon the last page and died in his chair,
at the age of seventy-three. By his will he made certain be-
quests of books, greatly enriching the Thoresby Society’s
library. The residue of his estate he bequeathed to the Society
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Although
he left no close relatives he left many friends, and to some of
them it was a consolation to learn that his frugal and abstemious
way of life had not been imposed on him, as some had feared,
by poverty. R. J. Woop.

. * c _ a ee Lar)
“—) <P. ae
aa VAULTED
- . ; ;
&
/ ; din otis)
.* ~~ \ pus (oly RE ¥
ae tre iy 7 5 < Ane DSi hLely. oa ie ’
Bill CPOE Mle Dr id Wil FA wk pe 7 & 5 acl oat Sone
FP > ‘ ‘4 ' 4 a : q - ee ee
awe Aeterrit) Mia rt aeull 24 JL an Ae iy iF pr seetat
s. a - $ A i - —
\Sajivion aft ot hen “UbArs far Sail ORME ae
a, ; I + ‘ 4- Mtl +
~ 6 : + Pu ' . - P + ; T i aH Ss e
ao | TM TRY 7. t 7? > ab 7, a » Lite ’ Jas, W
‘¥ j ’ ; is 3) 7 +s “4 ae rh es
Die eh ou 1) Do SQ SR pe Bae saa
i q ?
& 9 -_ 4 : A >
Gerd teas, Oat 3 Sar Seal : YU. VOUS ois
{ : . , ? t ? * ‘ -“s -
Cray ~! ipsa ivi 4) by é LW Shades Bares,
i ~y < : d % i
7 ; ie ; La » fig Fj
: ; 7 Ct pai
wisi ys Pe oy ay ‘ ’ ey ct) CCe RRS
Pra ' yi f a ae Pane
> Os ? ' J j he: ; Line, hs ie ee bed
AAW. $1 TK \... 2oneaeltt Laer
™ } 4 t Si 7 ~ + Ss
‘7 4 7 i) } -t * j bio y Oe ‘ ‘ a x. NOT
‘tnt t ; ‘| 4 Aw e™ I ie my etl, 5
, »
; . . | 4 = ¥ Py oe Ny
sith ta) as “ule oll ete Sa
: : re" ( , 6 Pye loyy hie
vy q oe 5 i r) Aes . = dod are Gs Lis
’ ¥ , d " . > es Pe ve
oF, 4 i i : ss" ; ea aT Eat.
ex ! ’ ; :? ; #1 x anja ly
rae , ~ . ne 258 ;
<) OA) aris fic> ry Se OF
: . r mele sd
7. iS iy { Teel 7 T pS : = 3
¢ > re ye J ‘
ioe ; 4 4 i sa! 4 tt
5 $ Mi) efitie: inal Oe
: a Bh « - a ba ~o .,
{ ' ¥ j : igs TE: xe wit I
se P »
‘ TRO}
j 7 i
~
ava :
P
‘ 3
i a
{ i s *. on
< " , 5
ue » t :
x i

fee BUILDING; OF EEEDS TOWN “HALL:
Poo LE DY UN VICTORIAN CIVIC PRIDE

By ASA BRIGGS

THE HISTORY of cities, particularly modern industrial cities,
usually focuses on social and civic problems, the difficulties
of adapting the urban environment to meet the needs of the
people who live in it. Less attention has been devoted by
historians to the mainsprings of civic pride. Yet the growing
industrial communities of the nineteenth century usually
passed through a period of intense civic pride, not simply
pride in numbers, but pride in the city as an institution. Often
the pride expressed itself in a more vigorous attempt to master
urban problems, in what contemporaries came to call “‘the
civic gospel’’. Perhaps even more often it burned itself out
in rivalries with near-by communities. Sometimes it was less
concerned with facts than with symbols, with the symbols of
status and prestige.

One of the most interesting manifestations of civic pride in
mid-Victorian Leeds was the building of the Town Hall. The
story is complicated, but it illuminates both local history and
Victorian history in general. “‘It may seem a small matter to
those who have not studied these questions of local politics’’,
a nineteenth-century biographer of Dr J. D. Heaton, a promin-
ent Leeds doctor, wrote, ‘‘whether a Town Hall in a provincial
city shall be of one style of architecture or another, whether
it shall be large or small, handsome or the reverse. As a matter
of fact, a great deal may depend upon the decision which is
arrived at in such a matter by the authorities upon whose
judgement the final decision depends.’’*

This article is concerned with what was implied in the phrase
“‘a great deal’’. The first ingredient, indeed, was clearly noted
in this context. It was provincial pride, fortified by distrust of
the claims of London. ‘‘No one would wish to underestimate
the importance of the metropolis; but, after all, it is not in
London that we find the best specimens of our English archi-

1T. Wemyss Reid, A Memoir of John Deakin Heaton, M.D. (1883), 121.

B

270 MISCELLANY

tecture . . . It is in what were once provincial cities or hamlets
that we discover the most venerable and the most striking
memorials of the taste and self-consecration of our forefathers.
And the time may come when the archaeologist of a future
age will look for the best specimens of the buildings of the
present reign, not to the Law Courts or the Houses of Parlia-
ment, but to some provincial towns, where possibly the hurry
and rush of life have not been as great as in the capital.’’*

I

The proposal that Leeds should have a new Town Hali
was first mooted in 1850. The occasion was the sudden death
of Sir Robert Peel and the desire of the citizens>of Leeds t%
commemorate him. This in itself was a characteristic Victorian
start, for Peel was the architect of Victorian England, and
the North of England in particular was anxious to do him
honour. Parks were named after him in several towns, includ-
ing Bradford, and statues of him were erected in many different
places.

At a Leeds borough meeting on 29 July 1850 a committee
was appointed to canvass for subscriptions to a Peel memorial.
It was also empowered to ‘“‘ascertain the feelings of the
inhabitants as to the erection of a large public hall.’’’ It
recommended that a public hall — at this stage, not a Town
Hall — should be built in Leeds, the necessary expenditure
to be raised by shares. Not less than £15,000 in all was to be
raised in £10 shares. The Peel monument fund was successful,
and on 20 August 1852 a statue by the well-known sculptor,
William Behnes, was unveiled in front of what was then the
handsome new Unitarian Chapel in Park Row. Between 30,000
and 40,000 people were present at the unveiling, and over
6,000 subscribers had contributed to the memorial. The statue
and pedestal cost 1500 guineas, and the subscripiions raised
ranged from £100 to a penny.

The attempt to raise a further sum of money for the public
hall failed, however, and the idea was put forward of a Town
Hall to be provided directly out of official funds. Councillor
Edwin Eddison, formerly the town clerk, moved in Council
on 5 October 1850 that a special rate should be levied for
the building of the Town Hall, the building not to cost more

2 Ibid.
3 J. Mayhall, The Annals of Yorkshire, I, 580.

.

|

THE BUILDING, OF LEEDS TOWN HALL Zig

than £20,000. The matter was deferred without a vote on
the grounds that the electors of Leeds should be given the
chance to express their views at the November election. One
member of the Council, however, stated that £20,000 was
far too much, and that £10,000 was ‘‘amply sufficient’’.

Apparently the idea of a Town Hall was favourably received
at the November ward meetings, and on 1 January 1851 —
the year of the Great Exhibition — the Town Council carried
by 24 votes to 12 a motion, proposed by Alderman Hepper,
to build a Town Hall. “‘As the attempt to raise funds by public
subscription has failed’’, the resolution read, “‘it is in the
opinion of this Council desirable to erect a Town Hall includ-
ing suitable corporate buildings.’’

A committee of the Town Council was appointed to make
enquiries. It consulted Joseph Paxton, the designer of the
Crystal Palace, and sent deputations to Manchester, Liverpool
and other large towns to see what plans they had for building
public halls before presenting its report on 9 July 1851. It
recommended that a new Town Hall should be built in Park
Lane on a site belonging to John Blayds. A house inhabited
by Dr Richard Hobson existed on the site, and the committee
recommended that a sum not exceeding £45,000 should be
set aside for the site and the new building. There was a delay
caused by disagreements connected with the costs of provision
of accommodation for judicial purposes in the new Hall, but
on 1 September 1851 Council accepted the Committee’s report
by 21 votes to 17. A sum of £22,000 was allotted for a Town
Hall and corporate buildings. Soon afterwards, on 29 Septem-
ber, Park House and Garden in Park Lane were bought from
John Blayds, the owner for £9,500. The matter was not yet
finally settled, for on rr February 1852 Councillor Titley pro-
posed a resolution that it was ““‘unwise and inexpedient to
proceed with the Hall’’. This motion was defeated by 28 votes
to 14. On 12 May when Alderman Hepper proposed that the
courts and judicial room should be provided in the Hall at an
additional cost not exceeding £15,000, the motion was de-
feated by 19 votes to 12. A fortnight later, however, on 29
May, the Council agreed to the change by 21 votes to 15.

The size of the minority opposed to the building of a new
Town Hall reveals the precarious balance of forces in nine-
teenth-century local life. The desire for ‘“‘economy’’ was a
dominating motive in mid-Victorian local government, and tt

278 MISCELLANY

influenced radicals as much as conservatives. It could only be
over-ridden if very genuine advantages could be proven. At
the same time the members of the majority on the Leeds Town
Council were clearly prepared for a more vigorous local policy
at this time. In April 1852, for example, the Council decided
to purchase the Leeds Waterworks — the voting was 22 to
16 — and in the same year work began on the long delayed
project of constructing sewers for the main streets.

The majority on the Council was backed by a number of
public-spirited individuals outside it. A Leeds Improvement
Society had been founded in January 1851 “‘to suggest and
promote architectural and other public improvements in the
town’’. Its secretary was Dr Heaton and its treasurer Thomas
Wilson. It often collided with the Council, but it strongly
supported — with some misgiving as to the Council’s capacity
to manage the project -— the building of the Town Hall.

Heaton, born in Leeds (his father was a bookseller) and
educated at Leeds Grammar School and Caius College,
Cambridge, visited the Continent where he had greatly admired
‘“‘those famous old cities whose Town Halls are the permanent
glory of the inhabitants and the standing wonder and delight
of visitors from a distance.’’* He believed, moreover, as did
people who thought like him, that “‘if a noble municipal palace
that might fairly vie with some of the best Town Halls of the
Continent were to be erected in the middle of their hitherto
squalid and unbeautiful town, it would become a practical
admonition to the populace of the value of beauty and art, and
in course of time men would learn to live up to it.’’’ A not
dissimilar point had been made by Benjamin Disraeli on a
visit to Manchester seven years before, when he held up before
his audience the stimulating examples of the great merchants
of Venice, who were the patrons of Titian and Tintoretto,
the merchant family of the Medici who made Florence the
home of genius, and the manufacturers of Flanders, who dwelt
in such cities as Bruges and Ghent.°®

It is impossible to understand the enthusiasm shown by men
like Heaton for the building of a Town Hall unless account
is taken of their view that Leeds as it was had to be con-
sidered a thoroughly unattractive place, lacking in good build-

4 Reid, Op. Cit. 144.

a fotd., WAZ:

f ae F. Monypenny and G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli (1929),

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 279

ings and corporate amenities. The new suburbs to the south
were grim from the start; the main street, Briggate, was
‘disfigured by . . . many ugly and insignificant buildings,
which were considered a disgrace to the town’’;’ and it was
not long before that Dr Baker had told a government enquiry
that the property which paid the best annual interest of any
cottage property in the borough was a cul de sac known as
Boot and Shoe Yard in Kirkgate, ‘‘where 75 cartloads of
manure were removed in the days of the cholera’’.* The build-
ing of a Town Hall, Heaton and his friends claimed, would
raise the standards of the present as well as continue the great
traditions of the past and point forward to the future. A rich
town like Leeds should consider the Town Hall question ‘‘in
the most broad and liberal spirit, and incur that which might
even seem to some to be an extravagant expenditure, rather
than fail in a duty which it owed to the rest of the community
and to posterity.’’®

The Town Council soon found that even when the problems
of the Town Hall were approached in a cautious rather than
a ““‘broad and liberal spirit’’, the cost of the venture increased
year by year. In June 1852 the Town Hall Committee, con-
sisting at that time of 18 members, with Alderman Hepper
as chairman, resolved to advertise an open competition for
‘plans, elevations, specifications and sections’’ for a new
Town Hall. Sir Charles Barry, who was still engaged at that
time in supervising the building of the new House of Commons,
was chosen as adviser. The first prize was to consist of £200,
the second £100, and the third £50. The Committee did not
make it clear, however, that the winning architect would be
given the task of planning the building, and in August 1852
a circular had to be issued stating that “in every probability’’
the architect would be employed: “‘it is not the intention of
the Committee to employ the Borough Surveyor to carry out
the work.’’*®

The Committee, advised by Barry, decided that the most

7 An Historical Guide to Leeds and Its Environs (1859), 5-6: Cf. J. Meason,
Official Illustrated Guide to the Great Northern Railway (1861), 425-6, ‘The
visitor who may be unacquainted with Leeds must not...expect to find a
handsome tow n with splendid public edifices and all the concomitants of luxury
and wealth.’

8 General Report Hs the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of
Great Britain (1842),

2 Reid, op. cit., ae

10 Minutes of the Town Hall Committee, 11 August 1852.

280 MISCELLANY

effective plan was that proposed by a young Hull architect,
Cuthbert Brodrick. He was only twenty-nine years old when
he prepared his drawings, and it is said that his mother, fear-
ing that he would be bound to fail, tried to dissuade him from
entering the competition.** He had previously served as a
pupil with Messrs. Lockwood and Mawson of Bradford, who
were engaged from 1851 onwards in the building of the new
industrial town of Saltaire. They were awarded the second
prize in the Leeds contest, the third prize going to Young and
Lovatt of Wolverhampton.

Brodrick had entered the architects’ profession in 1837 and
terminated his articles in 1843. He specialised in Gothic build-
ing and had visited the Continent in 1844, where he saw the
chief buildings of Northern France, Paris, Genoa, Verona,
Venice, Florence, Siena and Rome. After such a visit, it was
something of an anti-climax that his first commission in York-
shire was for a small railway station in the East Riding. In
May 1853 he watched the laying of the foundation stone of
a new centre which he had designed for the Hull Literary
Society and the Hull Literary and Philosophical Society, two
kindred institutes of the same type as the Leeds society to
which Heaton belonged.

The Committee was extremely cautious in its approach to
Brodrick. First it sought an assurance from Barry. ‘‘On being
asked . . . whether he thought such a young man. . . might be
entrusted with the construction of so large a building, Sir
Charles replied that, previous to the competition he was not
aware that such an architect existed, but he was fully satis-
fied that the Council might trust him with the most perfect
safety.’’** Having secured this assurance from Barry, the Com-
mittee sought an assurance from Brodrick. In February 1853
it persuaded the Town Council to accept an estimate of
£39,000 for the building and went on to insert a clause in
Brodrick’s contract stating that he would receive no remunera-
tion if his work exceeded this estimate.'’ Brodrick protested
against ‘‘this very unusual clause’’, but said that he would
agree to it ‘‘provided that it does not hold good if the cost of
the building is increased by means over which I can have no
control.’’** The Committee accepted this qualification. At the

11 T,. Butler Wilson, Two Leeds Architects (1937), 16.
12 Leeds Intelligencer, 18 September 1858.

13 Minutes of the Town Hall Committee, 1 March 1853.
14 [bid., 7 March 1853.

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 28T

same time a newly-appointed ‘‘sub-committee to superintend
the progress of the works’’ was designed to act as a watch-
dog.*’ In December 1853 it was given power to make altera-
tions and recommend extra work up to the sum of £500.'°

It was during the course of 1854 and 1855 that modifications
were made to the initial scheme which were to cost far more
than £500. The vestibule was extended,'’ an organ was
approved,** and most important of all, a tower which had
been rejected by the Council in February 1853, was again
contemplated. Without a magnificent organ no Victorian Town
Hall would have been complete, and a ‘‘gigantic instrument’’
was eventually installed. It excited ‘“‘considerable interest
amongst organists and amateurs throughout Europe.’’'? The
tower, however, was an object of prolonged and at times bitter
controversy. It had first been suggested by Barry, and Brod-
rick had produced a design which would cost £6,000 to execute.
When the Town Council turned this down in February 1853
it was far from being the end of the story. The proposal was
brought up again in September 1853, with a limitation of cost
to £7,000, but it was defeated by seven votes. In February
1854 the quarterly meeting of the full Town Council decided
as a compromise to allow for roof construction which might
eventually permit the erection of a tower “‘if at any time it
should be thought desirable to do so.’’*°

The addition of a tower was strongly criticized by ‘‘the
economical section of the inhabitants on the grounds that a
tower would cost money and would be only good to look at,
not to use.’’** The ‘‘cultured classes’’, of whom Dr Heaton
was a spokesman, retaliated by pleading for a complete
abandonment of a utilitarian attitude, however difficult that
might be in Leeds, and at a meeting of the Philosophical and
Literary Society on 6 January 1854, Heaton boldly stated
the non-utilitarian point of view. After discussing the town
halls of the Continent, he urged that Leeds also should build
an impressive “‘outward symbol’’ of “‘public government’’.

15 [bid., 16 February 1853. The sub-committee included three aldermen, of
whom Hepper was one. J. D. Luccock was chairman.

16 Jbid., 16 December 1853.

17 [bid., 30 March 1854. In August 1855 it was agreed to have an open balus-
trade on the east side and an overhanging cornice to the centre hall.

18 [bid., 24 June 1854.

19 An Historical Guide to Leeds and Its Environs (1859), 107.

20 Minutes of the Town Council, 8 February 1854.

21 Reid, op. cit., 145.

282 MISCELLANY

“It is in such a spirit’’, he went on, ‘“‘that I would have dis-
cussed the question of the propriety of adding a tower to this
building. Were this a question to be decided on merely
utilitarian grounds, I believe the tower must be condemned,
for it is not my opinion that the possible uses suggested, to
which such an erection might be applied, are of sufficient
practical importance to warrant the expense of such a structure,
were these the only or the chief consideration. But let us ask
what is appropriate to a building for the purpose of the one
in question, and what will be conducive to its dignity and
beauty? And should we decide that a tower may be made and
indeed is essential to fulfil these conditions, let us not, after
having nobly determined on the expenditure of so large a
sum upon the body of the work, grudge a few additional
thousands to give this completion to the whole.”’

In other words, functional criteria were explicitly set on
one side, and emphasis was placed on ‘‘nobility’’, ““elevating
influences’ and ‘‘pretensions’’. The Town Hall was to be a
visible proof that ‘‘in the ardour of mercantile pursuits the
inhabitants of Leeds have not omitted to cultivate the percep-
tion of the beautiful and a taste for the fine arts’’: it was to
serve as a lasting monument of their public spirit, and generous
pride in the possession of their municipal privileges. The
language was tinged with Continental associations. Indeed,
Heaton hoped that visitors would come to Leeds to see its Town
Hall just as he had been to Ghent for that purpose. The Town
Hall buildings, he hoped, might be “‘famous beyond their
own limits, and, like the noble halls of France, of Belgium
and of Italy’’, would “‘attract to our town the visits of
strangers, dilettanti tourists, and the lovers of art from distant
places.’’*?

The advocates of the tower won the day, although the
struggle was protracted. On one occasion a private citizen,
J. E. Denison of Ossington, offered to contribute £100 to-
wards its erection. It was not until March 1856 that the addi-
tion was approved by a majority of 19.*° The cost was to be
£5,500. By then the building of the Town Hall had led to
unanticipated difficulties, concerned not with the architecture
but with the contracting, and the cost of the whole venture
had soared still further. Pride was having to be paid for in
- good hard cash.

22 Tbid.
23 Minutes of the Town Council, 5 March 1856.

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 203

Il

The first stone of the new Town Hall was laid on 17 August
1853 by John Hope Shaw, Mayor of Leeds. The ceremony
was attended by large crowds, and the procession ‘‘of enor-
mous length’’ led by a number of brass bands, included the
vicar, the architect, the military officers stationed in the town,
the committees of the Philosophical Society and the Mechanics
Institutes, the Friendly Societies, the Guardians of the Poor,
and representatives of business and the professions as well as
members of the Town Council and official visitors from other
West Riding boroughs. The contractor duly placed mortar
on the foundation stone, and the mayor spread it with a silver
trowel. After having squared and levelled the stone and struck
it three times with a mallet, he exclaimed — ‘‘Thus, and thus,
and thus, I lay the foundation stone of the new Town Hall
of Leeds; and may God prosper the undertaking.’’ A choir
consisting of members of the Madrigal and Motet Society
(which had been founded three years before) then sang a
rousing chorus which began:

““A blessing we ask on the work now begun,
May it prosper in doing — be-useful when done : —
May the Hall whose foundations thus broadly are laid
Stand a trophy to Freedom — to Peace, and to Trade.’’

The celebrations continued with speeches from the mayor,
Alderman Hepper, Dr Hook, M. T. Baines (Member of Parlia-
ment for Leeds), Brodrick, and many of the visitors. After a
civic banquet there were popular festivities on Woodhouse
Moor, attended by a crowd of more than 60,000 people. The
day ended with fireworks.**

A few weeks before this celebration the contract for the
building of the Town Hall had been awarded to a Leeds
builder, Samuel Atack of 35 Trafalgar Street. Atack, who
was associated with Benjamin Musgrave, a dyer, undertook
to construct the building for £41,835, and to have it com-
pleted by 1 January 1856. The increase in costs over the
original allocation was caused by a rapid rise in the price of
labour and of building materials in 1853. Leeds was unfortun-
ate in that it built its Town Hall in a period of rising prices.
It was unfortunate also that its contractor, like so many nine-
teenth century contractors, lacked the capital to pursue his

24 Leeds Mercury, 18 August 1853.

284 MISCELLANY

work continuously. He was also ineffective, partly because
this was a year of high employment, in musitering a thoroughly
reliable labour force. He wrote to Brodrick at the end of
August 1853 stating that he found a great difficulty ‘‘in obtain-
ing workmen in any branch of my business, owing to work
being so plentiful about the country’’.*? He was engaged at
that time on a contract for building barracks near Sheffieid
where he was employing three hundred men.

By November Brodrick and Atack were on bad terms with
each other. For a time the excavation works were completely
suspended because they were not up to Brodrick’s specifica-
tions.*® Brodrick had earlier told Donaldson, the clerk of
works, that for ‘‘his own credit’s sake’’ he would give him
his most important orders in writing. They could then be filed
‘“‘so that they can be referred to at any time’’.*’

Disputes continued throughout the early months of 1854.
In February Brodrick complained of the small number of men
employed on the work and told Atack that he would withhold
any certificates for payment until the number of men reached
one hundred and fifty, including twenty hewers and forty
dressers and wallers. The Town Hall was built with a fluctua-
ting labour force — for example one hundred and twenty-five
on 9 February (when there was a dispute about extra rates
for dressing wall stones) and only seventy on 20 February.
The sub-committee visited the site on 1 March and expressed
themselves ‘‘satisfied with the work’’, but ‘‘dissatisfied with
the progress’’. On 14 March, a day of bad weather, only
thirty-five men were on the job. The argument about the tower
affected the composition and disposition of the labour force.
“Few men employed, being hindered on account of the
Tower’’ the clerk of works wrote on 29 April, a day when
a joiner fell from the joists. In good weather on 27 June only
ninety-five men were at work. ‘‘This is on account of Quarries
turning out badly. We have had little from Rawdon Hill for
some weeks past.’’ Two days later the stone was said to be
‘“‘outrageous’’ and the clerk had to visit the quarries person-
ally. By this time Atack was on the site all the time himself.
There was normal employment on 18 November, a fine day
with no broken time, when one hundred and ninety men were
employed.

25 Atack to Brodrick, 31 August 1853.

26 Brodrick to Hepper, 7 November 1853.
27 Brodrick to Donaldson, 7 October 1853.

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 285

There are a few vivid pictures in the log-book of James
Donaldson on the state of affairs in 1855, a year when Britain
was at war in the Crimea. On 16 March, Brodrick visited the
site and was ‘‘so dissatisfied with the Rawdon Hill stone being
used for cornices . . . that he took a hammer and destroyed a
cornice stone in order to prevent it being used in the build-
ing.’’ There were further disputes about stone in the next few
months and in October the committee authorised Brodrick to
get stone from Newcastle, Darley Dale ‘‘or any other avail-
able place’’ to complete the building.“* On 7 July the sub-
committee visited the site and urged Atack, who was then
employing one hundred men, ‘‘to get more men without de-
lay’. The target date was not very far off. On 8 September,
Brodrick himself complained to Atack of ‘‘the slow progress
of the works’’ and urged him to push them forward ‘‘with
more spirit’’. The news from the Crimea made this more diff-
cult. There was’ “no: work alter dimner’’ on 17 September to
celebrate the fall of Sebastapol. The following day there were
very few men at work: ‘‘they have not all returned and are
still keeping up the Hlumination which was so bright last
niet’? )"?

Sebastapol was on the eve of a local crisis. Atack informed
Brodrick on 1 October that his bankers (Beckett and Company)
had told him that they would not honour his cheques aiter
29 September. Brodrick replied sympathetically the following
day that he was sorry to hear this news and would give him
an additional certificate for £1,000 on his return to Leeds
over and above what he had certified him. He appears to
have been able to ease Atack’s position until January 1856,
when he informed him that the Building Committee had not
given him instructions to issue any more certificates.*° In early
April 1856 the works were standing. ‘‘The Contractor’’, the
clerk noted, “‘is unable to proceed any further. He has been
overpaid, and the architect will not certify for any more money.
Went to Doncaster on Saturday night and returned about four
o’clock this afternoon. A little stir took place about the con-
tractor having removed some scaffolding which was not
allowed to be removed . . . Policemen were sent to watch the
place night and day until matters were settled.’’*’

28 Minutes of the Town Hall Committee, 5 October 1855.

29 All these extracts are taken from the 121-page log-book of the clerk of works.

30 Atack to Brodrick, 1 October 1855: Brodrick to Atack, 2 October 1855:
Brodrick to Atack, 3 January 1856.

31 Log-book of the clerk of works, 7 April 1856.

286 MISCELLANY

Work was still standing the next day when Brodrick form-
ally reported the difficulties to his committee.** He and the
chairman had a ‘‘scene’’ on the site on g April when they
ordered two workmen employed by a sub-contractor to leave
their work. They reached some kind of agreement with Atack,
however — he had asked for £150 for Darley Dale stone and
wages before resuming work** — and the major works were
re-started the following day. Brodrick was doing his best to
speed up the work when once again the Crimean War intruded.
‘‘No work after dinner’’, we read on 24 July, “‘in honour of
the entry of the 4th Dragoon Guards into Leeds from the
Crimea.’’ On 2 September work was said to be unsatisfactory
and many of the plasterers absent: ‘‘some feast in the neigh-
bourhood is the cause.’’

In the autumn and early winter Atack and Brodrick were
arguing again about certificates for payment. Atack even made
a bid for the tower contract, a separate contract, in order to
have ready money in advance. His offer was turned down and
the Committee showed that it had full confidence in Brod-
rick.** He told them on 18 December that he could no longer
give any work certificates to Atack. ‘“With your concurrence
I have assisted him as much as possible for many months
back, and I cannot do so any further.’’ Atack’s contract had
been for £43,564; already £44,160 had been paid him. It
would take an additional £4,740 to finish the work, and
the arrears along with this considerable sum could not be
covered under the heading of ‘‘extra work’’ as he wished.
‘Extra work’’, in his opinion, amounted at most to £3,000.°°
The Committee authorised Brodrick to make a temporary
arrangement until after Christmas whereby payments were
to be made to Atack ““by measuring the actual work done
instead of by the time of the workmen generally as was form-
erly arranged.’’*°

In January 1857 work stopped completely, Atack being
‘unable to proceed further with any part of the work unless
money is advanced to him which cannot be done as he is

32 Minutes of the Town Hall Committee, 8 April 1856. On 4 April Brodrick had
reported that he was not prepared to give the contractor any certificate for that
week, ‘‘as he was not in his opinion entitled to any.”

33 Tbid., 10 April 1856.

34 Musgrave to the Town Hall Committee, 31 October 1856: Minutes of the
Town Hall Committee, 14 November 1856.

35 Brodrick to the Town Hall Committee, 18 December 1856.

36 Log-book of the clerk of works, 20 December 1856.

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 287

already overpaid according to the terms of his contract.’’ The
Chairman told Donaldson to be sure to forbid Atack from
removing any materials or equipment from the site and ordered
a policeman ‘‘to look round in the night’’.°’ When Atack
tried to give orders to a labourer and a few plasterers on 21
January Brodrick intervened to send them away. Later in
the month all Atack’s plant and stock were finally seized,”*
and he went bankrupt in March 1857. In November 1857 his
assignees claimed £20,000 from the Leeds Corporation includ-
ing £13,000 for “extra work’’ not included in the original
contract.°* A compromise agreeable to the Corporation was
reached on this claim, and the assignees were paid only £3,000,
the sum Brodrick had referred to the previous December.

Various other contractors were appointed to complete the
Town Hall, and there was also a change in the clerkship of
works when Donaldson left for India in the middle of June.*°
The contract for the tower, about which there had been so
much contention, was awarded to Addy and Nicolls of Leeds. **
Even at this late stage, it exceeded the sum contemplated,
and the deficiency had to be made up from an unexpected
surplus on the contract for ventilating and warming the Town
Hall according to a plan recommended by the architect and
Messrs. Haden of Trowbridge, Wiltshire. 3; 033 had been set
aside on 5 March for ventilating and warming: *” in fact, only
£2,000 were needed.** Further economies were made in the
windows. In June 1856 it was decided that the windows should
be glazed with three panes of glass throughout instead of nine,
as originally intended.**

The tower continued to engage the thought both of the Com-
mittee and of the citizens. In December 1856 E. B. Denison,
Q.C., a distinguished local lawyer, delivered a lecture on public
clocks to the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society. In
May 1857 the Council decided to have a clock and a bell at
a cost not exceeding £800, the clock to cost up to £500, the
bell to weigh thirty-five hundredweight and to cost £300. In

37 Tbid., 6 January 1857

38 Minutes of the Town Hall Committee, 29 January 1857.

39 Leeds Intelligencer, 18 September 1853.

40 Log-book of the clerk of works, 16 June 1857: ‘‘The Chairman called and
had a friendly conversation about my leaving the Town Hall to go to India.”’

41 Minutes of the Town Council, 12 August 1857.

42 Tbid., 5 March 1856.

43 Minutes of the Town Hall Committee, 11 September 1856.

44 Ibid., 27 June 1856.

288 MISCELLANY

these last stages, when the building was being completed, the
Council voted unanimously the sums of money necessary.
Among these sums were £3604 for paving the vestibule of the
principal hall, £490 for decorating the main entrance, £1,600
for decorating the large hall, £1,650 for gas chandeliers and
fittings, and £800 for the furnishing of the mayor’s rooms.
Not all this work had been completed, however, by the date
of the official opening, and the building of the tower, which
was suspended in the early summer of 1858 was also unfinished.

Mi

The official opening of the Town Hall on 7 September was
intended to be a very special occasion in the life of Leeds and
so it proved to be. It was decided in 1858 to combine the open-
ing with an exhibition of local manufactures and a musical
festival and to invite the Queen and the Prince Consort for
the occasion.

The Exhibition was to be held in the Cloth Hall. It was
organised by the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, which had
been formed, appropriately enough, in 1851 and whose presid-
ent, Darnton Lupton, had been a keen supporter of the Town
Hall project. Its object was to display the great variety of the
industrial products of Leeds, including the great variety of
its machinery. To this variety John Jowitt, one of the vice-
presidents of the Chamber, attributed the freedom of Leeds
“from these great fluctuations to which other manufacturing
towns are subject’’.*’ The ‘‘utility’’ of most of the products
was stressed.

The Musical Festival was to be a tribute to culture in the
interests of charity, the funds of the General Infirmary. There
had been a growing interest in music in Leeds for several years
before 1858, but the only room large enough for good concerts
was the Music Hall in Albion Street, there Jenny Lind had
sung and Robert Senior Burton, the organist of the Parish
Church and William Spark, the organist of St. George's
Church, had arranged subscription concerts. The Town Hail
was conceived of, among its many other roles, as a centre of
music, and the Festival was planned directly by the Town
Council itself, which co-opted members of outside musical
bodies on to its organising committee, which was set up in

45 Leeds Mercury, 11 September 1858.

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 289

March 1858. The same pattern of civic initiative and co-option
was followed by the Art Gallery Committee.

The First Musical Festival was ‘‘a swift piece of organisa-
tion and improvisation which set the pattern for future festivals
until security gave way to doubt after the First World War’’.**
William Sterndale Bennett was appointed conductor and R. S.
Burton quickly gathered together an imposing chorus of 245
singers, of whom only 80 were from Leeds and the remainder
from Bradford, Huddersfield and the other towns of the West
Riding. One of Bennett’s own works, “‘The May Queen’’, was
composed specially for the occasion, but the main features in
the programmes were Elijah, with which the Festival was to
open, Mozart’s Symphony in C major, Beethoven’s Mount of
Olives and Symphony in C minor, Haydn’s The Seasons and
Handel’s Jsvael in Egypt and Messiah, with which the Festival
was to conclude. The chairman of the orchestral committee of
the Festival was J. Kitson and the Mayor himself presided
over the main committee. Robert Barr, C. Alderson Smith
and J. N. Dickinson were secretaries, but the assistant and
effectively the acting secretary was Fred Spark, who had
previously been employed on the staff of the Leeds Mercury
where his musical criticism had been considered ‘‘too partial’’
by some of his readers.*’ He remained connected with Leeds
festivals until 1910 and contributed greatly to their success.

A great ball was to complete the Musical Festival of 1858.
Its opening, however, was postponed for one night for the
royal visit. Queen Victoria was then in the happiest part of
her reign, and royal visits were being made to a number of
large provincial cities. On her visit to Aston Park in Birming-
ham in June 1858, officials from Leeds were present to see
how the arrangements were made.** Letters were also exchanged
with the Corporation of Hull, which had been visited by the
Queen in 1854. This solicitude was not surprising. No reign-
ing sovereign had ever visited Leeds before; indeed “‘no royal
potentate had entered Leeds voluntarily or in a _ pacific
character’’.“° The only official royal local occasion had been
a visit from the King of Denmark, and that was as long before

46 F,. G. B. Hutchings, “Leeds Musical ee 1858-1958 (Leeds Centenary
vu cal Festival Souvenir ee 1958),
7 FR. Svark, Memoirs of My Life (1913), 6s.
ae There is a bundle of papers on the Birmingham visit in the Leeds Civic
Hall.
49 Supplement to the Leeds Mercury, 11 September 1856.

290 MISCELLANY

as 1768, although the Duke of Clarence (later William IV)
had been round Gott’s mill and the White and Coloured Cloth
Halls in r806.°° In 1835 Princess Victoria, as she then was,
had driven unofficially through Leeds on her way from Hare-
wood House to Wentworth Woodhouse. The Prince of Wales
had even spent a few hours unofficially in the town at Fleisch-
mann’s Hotel, as recently as May 1857.

Detailed arrangements were made for the royal visit in June,
July and August 1858 by a special Festival Committee pre-
sided over by Councillor Lupton.’* Offers of gifts of plants,
including three cartloads of evergreens, were accepted in
June. An offer from a Bradford man to provide iluminations
(‘‘allow a Bradfordian to make a show in your good old
town’’) may or may not have been accepted. It was decided
to re-colour the mayor’s chain, bought twenty years before.
The offer of a military band from Pimlico was not taken up.
It was agreed that members of the Town Council attending
the ceremony should pay for their own carriages. They were
to wear full dress and official costume.°? Two carriages were
to be provided for officers of the Corporation, and the town
clerk, J. A. Ikin, was to be allowed to have his servant on
the carriage box.

Platforms for Sunday School children were to be erected
out of public funds on Woodhouse Moor, where there was to
be a children’s demonstration. Medals were to be struck for
the occasion in large numbers. The route of the procession
was worked out a little later — Central Station, Wellington
Street, Queen Street; St Paul’s Street, Park ‘Square; Pam
Street, Great George Street and Clarendon Road to Woodsley
House where the Queen was to stay for the night before the
opening, and Woodsley House (via Clarendon Road and St
John’s Hill) to Woodhouse Moor on the next morning. The
actual approach to the Town Hall was to be via Woodhouse
Lane, Guildford Street, Upperhead-row, Briggate, Boar Lane,
Wellington Street, West Street, Park Place and East Parade.
The Leeds Friendly Societies, a very powerful force in the

50 [bid. On the same occasion the Prince of Wales (later George IV) visited

Templenewsam. He had intended to visit Leeds, but was prevented by indisposi-
tion from doing so.

51 The following details are taken from papers in the Civic Hall. I am most
grateful to Mr K. J. Bonser for his help in discovering the whereabouts of this
material.

52 One member of the Council (Councillor Crowther) said that he did not wish
to attend. He asked, however, for four ladies’ tickets.

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 291

life of the town, were asked to contribute to the success of the
occasion. There were 19,700 members in all, including a large
number of overflows and 1,500 Foresters. The 300 members
of the Leeds Corporation Flour and Provision Society also
offered to co-operate. Representatives of several of these bodies
attended a special meeting of the Watch Committee on
2 August.

Tickets for the Town Hall itself were in great demand, and
many applications were refused. The ladies of members of
the Town Council had, after a change of plans, to ballot for
seats, and the ballot was held in the Festival Committee Rooms
in Greek Street on 23 August. The men refused special ad-
mission tickets included the medical officer of the Leeds
Infirmary, the Inspector of Schools for Yorkshire, the head-
master of the Leeds School of Art, the secretary of the York-
shire Union of Mechanics Institutes, the resident engineer of
the Leeds and Great Northern Railway, the secretary of the
Leeds Stock Exchange, the secretary of the Chamber of Com-
merce (this request was put up twice before the Committee)
the secretary of the Leeds Anti-Slavery Society, the secretary
of the Leeds Early Closing Association, and the Lord Mayor
elect of London with his lady. Some of the requests were very
persuasive. The secretary of the Holbeck Mechanics Institute
referred to the ‘‘well-known liberality’’ of the chairman ‘‘to-
wards the cause of education amongst the working class’’:
the plea did not succeed. One letter ran as follows:

Leeds,

6 September 1853:
P. Fairbairn Esq.,

Mayor of Leeds.
Honoured Sir,

As an American and a Clergyman I am anxious to witness the recep-
tion you are about to give your Beloved Queen in the new hall. I have
letters to many gentlemen in England, Scotland and Ireland, which
with my passport for travelling on the Continent, will be a sufficient
pledge to you of my nationality and position. Sharing with my country-
men in veneration and love for your Queen and in the sincerest desires
for the welfare of your great nation, and connected with a Church
(the Presbyterian) that I shall mourn with thousands in the land,
the recent slaughter of missionaries and friends in India — I cannot
leave any honourable means untried to obtain some humble place in
the presence of your Sovereign, while you pay her the honour to
which I feel she is entitled from all who enjoy her reign, and admire
her virtues. I therefore respectfully request, that you will do me the

Cc

292 MISCELLANY

great favour to provide for admission to some part of your beautiful
Hall at the opening tomorrow.
I remain, dear Sir, though a stranger,
Yours respectfully,
(Signed) J. D. Wells of New York.

It is not known whether this request was granted. Another
letter jan:

Mr. Mayor,
Dear Sir,

Having particular desire to see Her Majesty at the Town Hall I
am applying to you for a Ticket as I understand you have the power
to give your Friends a treat. I think I have some claim — I was born
in Leeds 77 years ago last June and I hope have not been idle, I was
overseer in 1812 of Marsh Lane Quarry Hill Mabgate when flour was
7/- per stone and when we had to coin palings to pay our Poor at the
workhouse, and when 17 Men were hung at York for Luddism at
Hudd(ersfield). We had to pay our own expenses even to our tea at
the Workhouse. I was 2 years librarian at the Mechanics Institution
which was over my warehouse in Basinghall Street. I was one of the
first teachers along with my brother John and others, at the first
Sabbath school. I am one of the Methodists to the Ebenezer Chapel
belonging to the new Methodist connextion — 7 years before the Old
Connexion had one. I am not weary of the employment yet as I was
there last Sabbath and will attend as long as I am able, as I fully
believe there would have been a revolution in this country but for
Sabbath School and the [to] benefits both Children and Parents from
them as we go on the Voluntary Principle I have now done 59 years
for nothing but their good wishes — and Prayers — your compliance
with my request will greatly oblige.

Yours respectiuly,
Geo. Heap Senior.

It is refreshing to know that this second request was granted,
as were requests from two of the contractors.

So much spontaneous interest did not necessarily guarantee
good order, and a bundle of papers survive about military and
police arrangements. The chairman of the Watch Committee
wrote to the Home Secretary, Spencer Walpole, for help and
received a reply on 4 August from the Metropolitan Commiss-
ioner of Police, Sir Richard Mayne, promising ‘‘any assistance
in my power’’. On 23 August Walpole wrote that Superintend-
ent Walker of the Metropolitan Police would be sent down for
the occasion to assist Read, the Leeds Chief Constabie and
Superintendent Grauhan. Ihe Leeds police force of 2278
members was to be augmented by 160 from the West Riding,
50 from Bradford, 93 from London, 2 from Birmingham and

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 293

17 others including zr from Manchester, 1 from Liverpool and
I from York. The Military were to be present in strength,
chiefly four companies of the 22nd Regiment of Foot and the
18th Hussars and the Assistant Adjutant-General was to be in
charge. Local pensioners were enrolled to keep order and the
members of the Friendly Societies were used for this purpose
also.

The last request before the ceremony took place came from
a number of workmen. “‘We the undersigned workmen’’ it ran,
‘engaged at the Town Hall works humbly petition the Com-
mittee to take into consideration the propriety of a small grant
being given to them to celebrate the successful erection and
almost completion of so important and magnificent building.
This being the custom in all new Buildings, either public or
private, we hope will be sufficient apology for trespassing upon
your valuable time at present. As the works are so nearly
finished, many of the workmen must necessarily be immed-
lately discharged, therefore we humbly and respectfully beg
to solicit your earliest attention to this petition.’’ It was signed
by paviours, plasterers, joiners, masons, carvers, painters,
gas-fitters, organ-builders and decorators. The Committee
granted the workmen £25.

While the letters were pouring in, the Committee was busy
drafting a loyal address to the Queen. It re-capitulated the
whole case for the building of the Town Hall specially for her
benefit. ““We venture to hope’’, it stated, ““‘that so excellent
a judge of art as Your Majesty may find something to approve
in the Hall in which we are now for the first time assembled,
and may be well pleased to see a stirring and thriving seat
of English industry embellished by an edifice not inferior to
those stately piles which still attest the ancient opulence of
the great commercial cities of Italy and Flanders. For the
mere purpose of municipal government a less spacious and
costly building might have sufficed. But in our architectural
plans, we have borne in mind the probability that, at no
distant time, civil and criminal justice may be dispensed to
an extensive region in this town, the real capital of the West
Riding. We were also desirous to provide a place where large
assemblies might meet in comfort to exercise their constitu-
- tional right of discussing public questions, listen to instruction
on literary or philosophical subjects, or to enjoy innocent
amusements.”’

294 MISCELLANY

It was a cogent statement. It ought to be added that it was
decided that a copy of the programme should be sent to the
town clerk of York.’°

IV

The Queen arrived in Leeds in the early evening of Monday,
6 September. The mills had been closed for the day ‘‘almost
universally’’, and there were dense crowds “‘from an early
hour until midnight’’. It rained hard an hour before the Queen
was due to arrive, and a few drops fell as she arrived, but
fortunately the rain stopped just in time. The Central Station
was packed by an official welcoming party which included the
Mayor, Peter Fairbairn, the Councillors and Aldermen in
brand new official robes, the Bishop of Ripon, Lord Derby,
Parl Fitzwilham, Lerd Goderich, Lord Hardwicke, Vit
Baines, M-P., RR. Monckton Milnes;- MOP., and “Pdwara
Denison, the chairman of the Northern Railway. ““The appear-
ance of the station at this time, if not very handsome was
certainly attractive. The directors had not wasted the share-
holders’ money in elaborate decorations, but the gay uniforms
of the military and the robes of the Council supplied the want,
and gave to a scene which would otherwise have been very
dull and uninteresting a sufficient degree of variety to make
it pleasing and somewhat picturesque.’’’* A royal salute added
to the picturesqueness.

The route to Woodsley House was lined with enthusiastic
crowds, behind barricades, and everywhere there were lavish
decorations both on private houses and commercial buildings.
The Corporation had appointed a sub-committee on street
decorations.’” It had also provided limited funds for them,
but these allocations were only a tiny fraction of the total
amount spent. Flags, banners, elaborate wooden arches and
colonnades, flowers and streamers were everywhere. ‘‘The

53 The Queen had made no official visit to York since her coronation, “‘though
she frequently stayed at the station for refreshments on her way to and from
Scotland’’ (Leeds Mercury, 11 September 1858).

54 Supplement to the Leeds Mercury, 11 September 1858. Unless otherwise
stated, the main details are taken from this account.

55 £40 was paid to a shop in Briggate, £30 to a dealer in Upperhead-row, £40
to a dealer in Woodhouse Lane, £80 to Thomas Grayson of West Street, and
£100 to R. N. Carter of Wellington Street. There were many advertisements in
the local papers for the sale of flags and bunting. John Barran published a very
topical advertisement for the sale of clothes for the ball: ‘‘For nothing commands
so much admiration, As Fashion and dress in every station.”’

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 295

new styles of street architecture, improvised for the occasion,
relieved very effectively the monotony of a protracted route,
in certain portions through an unattractive district, whilst the
profusion of banners . . . reminded one rather of some rustic
féte or May-day festivity of the olden time, than of the rejoic-
ings of a sober, money-making, mercantile community.’’ One
chemist, Mr Trant, in Park Lane even perfumed the air outside
his shop, “‘and thus another sense was gratified.’’

The comments made at the time in the local press suggest
that a mood of quite unreal romance was being cultivated
in Leeds for this royal occasion. Again, the Town Hall was
the symbol of it in much the same way that the Crystal Palace
had been the symbol of romance for the nation in 1851. Once
the Queen had seen the 32,110 Sunday School children on
Woodhouse Moor — a record gathering of this kind — and
moved in gay procession down Woodhouse Lane and through
the centre of the town, she was confronted with the Town
Hall! as a glorious climax. A giant arch had been built at the
top of East Parade. Designed by Brodrick himself, it was
constructed in imitation of stone in the style of architecture
“commonly called Renatssance.’’ The object of placing the
arch at the top of East Parade was to hide the Town Hall
from view ‘‘so that the full effect of the noble structure might
be realised by Her Majesty at once’’. French, Prussian and
American flags were flying on the arch beside the Union Jack
and Royal Standard.

‘Everyone was evidently proud of the Town Hall and felt
that it was worthy of a Royal inauguration.’’ A statue of the
Queen, the work of Edward Behnes and costing 1,000 guineas,
had been presented to the Council by the Mayor.’® It dominated
the vestibule, so much so that the Leeds Mercury wrote that
“in our judgement the Queen ought for ever to have that noble
vestibule, the gem of the Town Hall entirely to herself’’. The
words ‘‘Europe-Asia-Africa-America’’ round the vestibule re-
minded the inhabitants of Leeds that they were part of an
Empire, ‘‘that Her Majesty’s dominion extends to all quarters
of the globe’. The Queen and Prince~Consort paused to
admire the statue as they came in. They also surveyed ‘‘the
beautiful decorations of the dome’’. The organ then pealed
out the national anthem, the Bishop of Ripon said prayers

56 Behnes was the sculptor of the statue of Sir Robert Peel, which had been
paid for by private subscriptions.

296 MISCELLANY

(Dr Hook wrote later that he felt quite out of it),°” the
Hallelujah Chorus was sung, and the address, which had been
so carefully prepared, was read by the Town Clerk. It ended
with the words:

“It is probable [in the future] that experimental science will
have made great progress; that inventions of which we have
seen the promising infancy will have been brought by successive
improvements near to perfection; and that the material wealth
of our island may be such as would now seem fabulous. Yet we
trust that even then our Hall will be seen with interest as a
memorial of a time when England already enjoyed order and
freedom, profound tranquility and steadily increasing prosperity,
under a Sovereign exemplary in the discharge of every political
and of every domestic duty; and that those who visit this building
will contemplate it with double interest when they are told that
it was inaugurated by the good Queen Victoria.’’

The Queen replied quite simply, praising ‘‘the active indus-
try and enterprising spirit’’ of Leeds as much as she praised
“the noble hall’’ itself. The Prince Consort also spoke before
the Queen knighted Fairbairn. Hepper who had been made
borough treasurer earlier in 1858 (to the great anger of Alder-
man Luccock and the Unitarians), was presented to the Queen
along with the borough coroner and clerk of the peace.

The royal pair then left for the station. It had been a remark-
able visit. ““For a portion of two days, through the condescend-
ing of Her Majesty’’, the Leeds Mercury wrote, “‘this old
and busy seat of industry becomes in a sense the seat of the
Empire.’’’* For once the Tory rival of the Mercury, the Leeds
Intelligencer agreed. “‘A novel has just now been issued from
the press entitled ‘Every man his own Trumpeter’. We have
not read it; and are not quite up to the science of blowing
our own trumpet, but are pleasantly saved the disaster in fail-
ing in the attempt to sound the praises of our native town .. .
by the more independent . . . comments) of others s7oVe
could not have claimed such praises as The Times bestows
though we are quite disposed to regard them as well
deserved.’’”? The Times spoke of loyalty and affection as well
as energy. Leeds had been superabundant in the last of these

57 “T must own to a little mortification at first at being entirely superceded in
my own dunghill’’, he wrote to a friend. ‘‘The Bishop said the prayer and spoke
at the Banquet. But this nasty feeling soon gave way when I found him doing
everything so much better than I could have done it myself.’’ (W. R. W.
Stephens, The Life and Letters of Walter Farquhar Hook (1878), II, 337-8.)

58 Leeds Mercury, 7 September 1858.
59 Leeds Intelligencer, 11 September 1858: Times, 7 September 1858.

THE BUILDING’ OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 297

qualities: it had now shown that it possessed the others in
good measure too.

After the royal visitors had left Leeds, the Queen having
approved of the ‘‘entire arrangements’ and having noted
with appreciation “‘the loyalty and affection’’ of the “‘vast
assemblages of people’’,°® a great luncheon was held in the
Town Hall for nearly four hundred guests. Most of the speeches
on this ceremonial occasion were concerned with the Town
Hall. The Bishop of Ripon noted that the erection of the build-
ing was ‘‘an indication of the prosperity of the borough’’ —
a prosperity to which, he trusted, it was destined very largely
to contribute. This was exactly the right note on which to
start. [he religious note came next. He had been concerned
with the opening of many religious buildings in the Leeds
area®’. Although the Town Hall was not designed specifically
for the purposes of religious worship, it had been constructed
so that “‘within its walls justice might be duly administered,
scientific enquiry pursued, knowledge advanced and devel-
oped’’. These were high purposes, best associated with
religion. Councillor Beckett who spoke soon afteiwards re-
lated the Town Hall a little more mundanely to the other
improvements which had recently been made in the town,
‘‘the supply of water, the drainage, the efficiency of the police,
and the lighting of the borough’’.

The two members of parliament for the West Riding, Ed-
mund Denison, Conservative, and Lord Goderich, Whig, were
particularly eloquent. Denison, who had earlier welcomed the
Queen at the station as chairman of the Great Northern Rail-
way Company, claimed that she had always evinced her
readiness to visit any great town whose inhabitants were ready
at their own expense to erect institutions and buildings like
Leeds Town Hall, ‘‘calculated to lead to the intellectual
improvement of all those around it’’. The citizens of Leeds
had roused themselves ‘‘from their lethargy with regard to
intellectual pursuits, convinced, at last, that there were other
matters well worth their attention besides manufacturing
broadcloth for the purpose of making money’’. Not that mak-
ing money was not necessary. The Prince Consort had that

60 Letter of the Home Secretary to. the Mayor, 16 September 1858. The visit,
eee said, had “left a deep and lasting impression on her Majesty’s mind and

61 This was true. Most of the new buildings in the Leeds of the 1850s were
churches. See Stephens, op. cit., 353, for Hook’s comment.

298 . MISCELLANY

morning visited the Exhibition of Local Industry in the Cloth
Hall. ‘‘Beautiful as was their Town Hall’’, Denison ventured
to say, “‘their Exhibition was better worth their study and
attention.’’ The romance was not to turn their heads, nor
were “‘the intellectual-pursuits’’.°

Goderich admired the Town Hall as a product of the wealth
and energy of Leeds, but he brought out yet a further note,
not an easy accomplishment at this late stage of the proceed-
ings. The building showed not only the public spirit and
liberality of the town but the vigour and vitality of the
Corporation which had sponsored both the building and
Festival. Goderich had always thought municipal institutions
of the greatest value to the country. Long might England
preserve and cherish them! ‘‘In the Town Hall the Corpora-
tion’’, he felt sure, ‘“‘would discharge their duties for the
administration of the affairs of the town with the same success
which had crowned their efforts in the erection of that edifice.’’
The Leeds Mercury underlined the point made by Goderich.
“Tf there is anything of which Leeds might justly be proud in
this municipal adventure, it is that it has been erected by the
people’s own means and representatives, and is not conferred
upon us by a lordly proprietor or patron.’’

One of the members of parliament for Leeds, M. T. Baines,
echoed the views of his colleagues, adding, as if to show that
the aspirations of Leeds were not yet fully satisfied, that he
hoped that now that Leeds had good accommodation for courts
of justice, it ought to be in a very strong position indeed to
press its claims to ‘‘assume the rank and character of an
assize town.’’ A later speaker added that Lord Brougham had
told him that the new court-rooms in the Town Hall were
“unequalled in their arrangement’’. Presumably this had been
on the occasion of Brougham’s visit to a great soirée of the
Mechanics Institute in November 1857, a visit which inspired
Hook to dilate on the virtues of life in Leeds. The inhabitants
of the great manufacturing towns, he had argued, were
superior in morals as well as in intelligence to the inhabitants
of the rural districts. ‘“There was a wonderful weight of energy
in the manufacturing districts for counteracting vice which
they in the country did not possess.’’** Crime was far lower
than the critics of cities believed. Nevertheless, Leeds needed

62 Leeds Mercury, 11 September 1858.
63 Stephens, op. cit., 314-315.

THE BUILDING OF LEEDS TOWN HALL 299

its courts at least as a symbol of its pride, and the local ambi-
tion of becoming an assize town was eventually satisfied in
1864, when the County of York was divided for assize
purposes.

One of the last speakers at the luncheon of 1858 was Brodrick,
who was “‘warmly applauded by the whole company’’. It
would be interesting to know his thoughts on this occasion.
As it is, all that the reports say is that Brodrick ‘‘briefly
replied’. He had, however, become a genuine ‘‘Leeds citizen’’
by 1858. He lived in bachelor lodgings at Far Headingley
among the great Victorian villas and was an active member
of the Leeds Club, which had been founded in 1846 and was
much frequented by the merchants and professional gentlemen
of the town.**

His work in Leeds was not yet finished. After 1858 he was
often referred to by the nickname ‘‘Town Hall, Leeds’’, and
he went on to design the Corn Exchange (1860), an adventur-
ous and still exciting building, Blenheim Baptist Church
(1864), Leeds Institute (1865), the Oriental Baths, Cookridge
Street (1866), and King Street Warehouses (1867). In 1860,
still only forty-seven years old, he left Leeds ‘‘as he had come,
a bolt from the blue’’.°’ He was elected a member of the Coun-
cil of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1874, but
he resigned the following year and spent the rest of his life
in provincial France and the Channel Islands. He died in

1905.
Vv

The Town Hall is an impressive architectural monument.
It covered an area of 5,600 square yards and was located in
what is now a commanding position. The position was made
more commanding in 1858 by a “‘platform of earth’’ being
specially ‘“‘thrown up’’ for the occasion.

The basic plan was a parallelogram 250 feet by 200 feet,
conceived in the grand ‘‘Renaissance’’ manner, symmetrical
but essentially simple. A single order of Corinthian columns
and pilasters was to support an entablature and balustrade
just under seventy feet in height. The large Victoria Hall rises
out of the centre of the building to a height of ninety-two feet.

64 Mayhall, op. cit., I, 534.

65 T,. Butler Wilson, op. cit., 254. Brodrick also designed 7 Alma Road, Head-
ingley, and Moorland Terrace, Reservoir Street.

300 MISCELLANY

One hundred and sixty-one feet long by seventy-two feet wide
and seventy-five feet high, it was quite deliberately intended
to be bigger than other provincial halls and to vie with the
Guildhall in the City of London. The inhabitants of Leeds
might not have been able to argue for long about the merits
of ‘‘Renaissance’’ architecture, much of which in the parlance
of the day was very “‘freely treated’’, but they could appreciate
statistical tables of this kind®°:

Feet long Feet wide Feet high

Westminster Hall : 228 66 g2
St. George's. Mall, Biverpool . 169 74 75
Birmingham Town Hail ; 145 65 65
Durham Castle 180 50 36
London Guildhall 153 50 55
London Euston Station Hall : 125 61 60
Leeds Town Hall 161 5 (22 75

They could also appreciate the decorations. The Hall was
enriched with ornament in relief and in colour in almost
lavish manner, every portion being more or less decorated’’.
The sides of the Hall were divided into five bays by composite
Corinthian columns and pilasters ‘“‘in imitation of Rosso
Antico’’, with gilt bronze capitals and bases, standing upon
a surbase ‘‘inlaid with precious and rare specimens of marbles,
executed in the most finished style of painting’’. An enriched
entablature ran round the hall, and from it sprang “‘a fine
circular ceiling, highly ornamented with conventional foilage,
in relief and coloured’’. The Hall was lit by ten semi-circular
windows, mixed with stained glass made in Manchester. The
cut-glass chandeliers were made in Birmingham. All the riches
of Victorian England were thus being lavished on Leeds. The
mottoes inscribed in various parts of the Hall were superbly
Victorian also. “‘Except the Lord build the House, they labour
in vain thatsbuild it.” “Except the Lord keep the city tie
watchman watcheth but in vain.’’ ‘‘Weave Truth with Trust.’’
“‘Magna Charta.’’ ‘“‘Forward.’’ ‘‘Labor omnia vincit.’’*’
The coloured decorations in the Hall and vestibule were the
work of John Crace of London. Over the tympanum of the
entrance to the vestibule there was placed a striking emblem-
atic group of figures, elaborately carved by John Thomas,
one of the sculptors of the House of Commons.** The group

C€

66 Leeds Intelligencer, 11 September 1858.
67 Tbid.
68 T, Butler Wilson, op. cit., 20: °°

THE BUILDING OF (LEEDS TOWN HALL 301

represented Leeds ‘‘in its commercial and industrial character,
fostering and encouraging the Arts and Sciences’’. The central
figure, which was ‘‘almost colossal’’, was that of a female in
free and elegant drapery holding in her outstretched right
hand a wreath and in her left a distaff. Justice, the Fine Arts,
Poetry and Music were represented by other figures. So, at
least as appropriately, was Industry, ‘‘looking with anxious
care towards the principal figure and holding in her hands
samples of textile fabrics’. Mercury smiled on the scene,
“symbolic of Order, Peace and Prosperity.’’

Contemporaries delighted in these features as they delighted
in the magnificent organ, built by Gray and Davison of
London and costing £6,000. They were impressed too by the
Council Chamber with its rich ornamentation, marred a little
at first by the fact that there had not been time to complete
the coloured decoration before the inauguration and that con-
sequently the walls and ceiling had been ‘‘distempered with
plain tints’’.

It is the facade, the massive proportion of the building with
its flight of twenty steps, the sombre stone and the black lions
which have most interested twentieth-century posterity. The
facade was changed from the original plan, Brodrick having
begun his drawings with a semi-circular projection. The stone,
impressive though it remains, came from several places and,
as we have seen, there were hitches in acquiring it. The main
quarries were Rawdon Hill, Pool Bank, Bramley Fall and
Calverley Wood all in the neighbourhood of Leeds, and Darley
Dale, in Derbyshire. Darley Dale stone was used for the large
blocks of stone in the south colonnade. The black lions, made
from Portland stone, were an improvisation. At the time the
Leeds Corporation was asking for estimates and models, Brod-
rick met a stone carver working on the Town Hall at Hull.
He was so impressed that he sent the carver, Noble, to the
Zoological Gardens, Regent’s Park, to model four lions for
Leeds Town Hall. Estimates were asked for by the Corpora-
tion and Noble’s tender of £600 was considerably lower than
his two rivals’ £1,200 and £800.°°

The Tower, about which so much argument had arisen,
fittingly completed the edifice. The small towers, in reality
ornamental ventilating flues at the four corners of the Victoria
Hall building, recalled the towers of Hanover Chapel in Regent

69 Tbid., 21.

302 MISCELLANY

Street, designed by C. R. Cockerell in 1825."° The main
dome-capped tower, however, was unique. It was not com-
pleted in September 1858, nor was it ready for the meeting of
the British Association in Leeds later in the year. To have
completed it for this great intellectual occasion, always a
landmark in the history of nineteenth-century provincial
towns, would have been truly symbolic in the light of all that
had gone before.

So successful, however, was the general effect of the Leeds
Town Hall that it provided inspiration for at least three other
Town Halls, that of nearby Morley, usually profoundly sus-
picious of Leeds, in 1895, Portsmouth (1891), and Bolton
(1868). Brodrick was asked to submit a design for the last
of these, but he refused to co-operate with a local architect
as the Bolton Corporation wished. The result was that another
Leeds architect, William Hill, got the commission and com-
pleted the work.”

Perhaps the last word on Leeds Town Hall should be a
word on cost. It was doubtless a great monument to business
energy and to civic pride, but it cost far more, as most monu-
ments do, than was originally intended. Structure and fittings
cost £122,000 or £80,165 more than the original contract.
This sum was exactly £100,000 more than was originally in-
tended. The advocates of ‘‘economy’’, so powerful in mid-
Victorian local government, would never have supported the
project had they known this, and there was an inevitable lull
in civic spending after 1858. When Edward Baines urged
that a fund should be raised to decorate the new Town Hall
with paintings by prominent Victorian artists, a subscription
fund was opened, but the subscriptions did not come in. “The
times were not ripe for such a movement. The people of Leeds
had been inclined to see the necessity of making their Town
Hall more creditable to themselves . . . but had not advanced
far enough to feel emulous of the local patriotism which dis-
tinguished the good Flemish and German burghers of the
middle ages.’’”*

(ORT Did Zor
TU WO. 31:
72 Reid, op. cit., 156-7.

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING
SOCIETY, 1825-1843

By W. G. RIMMER

POPULATION AND industrial growth after the mid-eighteenth
century transformed the physical pattern of housing in many
large towns. A pre-requisite of urban expansion both at that
time and earlier was a navigable waterway. This was a town’s
main artery of trade, the basis of its growth. As a result, land
in the vicinity of port districts was increasingly wanted for
wharves, warehouses and workshops. Sites near landing-
stages and docks became too valuable to use for many
purposes, including middle-class houses with large gardens.
Besides, the noise and bustle around a waterway, the smoke
and smells issuing from nearby workshops, and the congestion
of lower-class property, caused wealthy people to reside further
afield. As a rule, in a town such as Leeds, the middle-class
trader and manufacturer followed by his professional satellite
moved to new houses upstream from the port. The district
downstream, the east side of town in eastern England, became
a working-class cottage district. In between, the old core of
the town within easy reach of the wharves, gradually changed
into a zone of markets, stores, workshops and shops. Thus,
parallel with the increase in people and enterprises went a
process of polarisation, involving a degree of social separa-
tion. This process was never absolute. No district was exclus-
ively inhabited by families of one social class.* People not
only moved between social groups, but physical boundaries
remained fluid, particularly in middle-class districts, not least
because working-class numbers increased twice as fast as those
of the middle-class in Leeds. The result was a continuous

i In other words, enclaves of artisans’ cottages could be found in the west part
of Leeds, and some merchants, manufacturers and professional men dwelt on the
east side. ‘“‘Class’’ is here conceived as an aggregation of socio-economic groups
divided into the two broad urban categories which people referred to in the early
nineteenth century. The ‘‘industrial class’’ includes the impoverished, the unskilled
and the skilled worker. The ‘‘middle class’’ includes an eminent minority (men
of property, leaders of commerce and industry, and established professional men),
and a large majority whose position was much less secure and depended upon a

special degree of skill, a key industrial job, or slender resources as in the case
of an aspiring operative-entrepreneur or a small shopkeeper.

304 MISCELLANY

winnowing process carrying families and groups from one
district to another. Furthermore, this tendency towards a
tripartite physical division lasted for a limited period. The
growth of industrial suburbs and the introduction of railways
overlaid this pattern. But for a time during the first major
phase of industrial expansion — in Leeds between the 1770s
and 1840s — the need for commercial interests to remain
in close proximity to the waterway affected the pattern of
residential development.

The three categories distinguished in the preceding para-
graph stand out clearly in the case of Leeds on a Sanitary Map
of the town for 1842. East of Vicar Lane lay a vast expanse
of working-class cottages. West of Park Row was a spacious
suburb of superior “‘first-class’’ houses. In between lived and
worked shopkeepers, clerks and overseers, and the quality of
their accommodation in terms of cost was perhaps the least
enviable in the town. They paid extremely high rents for
combined living and working premises. But location was all-
important for business and they had little choice in the matter.

In the second quarter of the nineteenth century, some of the
middle group began moving to the outskirts of the town. Space
became too valuable to use for residential purposes as the
number of shopkeepers and craftsmen wanting central sites
increased. Moreover, retailing began to adjust to the needs
of factory production and this eased the transition to suburban
housing. Shopkeepers gradually stopped processing semi-
finished materials and sold a larger volume of factory-produced
goods then coming on to the market. True, this change took
fifty years to complete, but its roots stretch back to the post-
war generation. Once his function changed, the shopkeeper
dwelt away from his workplace as most other people did in
factory towns.

The extent and direction of this process in Leeds is shown
by comparing the situation in 1774 with that reported fifty
years later by the Corporation’s Statistical Committee.” In
the 1774 Rate Book, 884 houses, 26% of the houses in Leeds,
paid rents between £3 and £10 a year. These were “‘second-
class’’ houses. By 1839 the rent of such property had risen to
between £10 and £20, and 2,640 houses, 14.4% of the town’s

2 The Poor Rate Book for Leeds Township for 1774 (LO/RB 32 in the Leeds
City Archives), and a ‘‘Report upon the Condition of the Town of Leeds and of
its inhabitants’ in the fournal of the Statistical Society, II, 1839.

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 305

dwellings, paid rents within this range. The amount of this
‘‘second-class’’ property, like the “‘first-class’’ houses, had
trebled in two generations. But its proportion halved owing
to the big increase in working-class cottages. As one would
expect, the quantity of ‘‘second-class’’ property in the old
central wards remained fairly stationary during this period.
Much was demolished — like the Middle Row in the 1820s —
and some rebuilt. Between Lands Lane and Butts Lane, a
considerable amount of new property was erected. But the
important point is that rents in the district rose precipitously.
A row of four residential-shops erected in 1823-4 on the only
site vacant in Bond Street cost £1,200 (excluding land) to
build, and they were let for more than a hundred pounds a
year.” Small shopkeepers and self-employed craftsmen could
not afford such sums. They rented one or two rooms and some
‘‘cellar dwellings which are in fact shops’’ for £30 to £50
a year.“ And they therefore lived elsewhere. Consequently
the main increase in second-class housing —- some seventeen
hundred dwellings — took place in the outer wards, partic-
ularly after the war. In the east and north-east districts, the
number of “‘second-class’’ houses trebled between 1774 and
1839. Nearly five hundred shopkeepers and _ self-employed
craftsmen lived in the heart of the working-class cottage dis-
trict, many in rooms above their stores and workshops. To
find out who they were and what they did, consult a directory.
For instance, in 1834 the first seven dwellings in the important
thoroughfare of Marsh Lane housed a grocer, a tailor, a shoe-
maker, a shopkeeper, a retail ale and porter dealer and a cloth
worker.’ But the largest increase in ‘“‘second-class’’ dwellings
took place in the west, north and north-west wards on a
wholly residential basis. For instance, those who lived in
Coburg Street had business premises somewhere else in the
town: George Crawshaw of No. I was a salesman; Ann
Bywater of No. 2 Coburg Street had a confectioner’s shop in
Kirkgate; William Slade, No. 3, was a corn factor with a
commercial address at 12 Crescent, Warehouse Hill; No. 4,
Joseph Kirk, had an ironmonger’s shop in Kirkgate — and
so on. Those who could afford to live away from their place

3 Hey Family Papers, DB 75 in the Leeds City Archives.

4 Report of the Poor Law Commissioners in 1842 on the Sanitary Condition of
the Labouring Population, Local Reports, Leeds, 366.

5 Baines and Newsome, Directory of the Borough of Leeds, 1834.

306 MISCELLANY

of work — and those who worked in the central districts found
it cheaper to do so — tended to congregate in enclaves on the
north and north-west periphery of the town. They thus lived
apart from their employees and shared some of the conven-
lences — water, drainage and lighting — already provided
in the fashionable squares and terraces of the west side. In
1774 half the ‘‘second-class’’ houses were located in the old
central wards; by 1839 two-thirds were in the three north / west
wards, in all some fifteen hundred dwellings.

This account concerns one row of “‘second-class’’ suburban
houses, Alfred Place in Little London. It is worth relating
for two reasons. First, information about cottage property can
be found in official investigations and many first-class houses
built at this time survive for inspection. But there are no re-
ports on second-class houses and the few that remain are
rapidly being demolished. Such evidence as this provides the
only guide to the construction and quality of the ‘‘second-
class’? house in which the £10 householder lived. Secondly,
Alfred Place was built by a terminating building society of
the kind that flourished before the establishment of perman-
ent building societies in the 1840s. These clubs have been re-
garded as breeding grounds of ‘‘practical democracy’’ amongst
the working classes.° By founding and managing such insutu-
tions, working men supposedly gained experience in joint-
action and responsibility. This particular society did not
consist of working men — did working men have the means
for such schemes in the early nineteenth century? — but of
small masters and white collar workers, many of whom
managed concerns and shouldered responsibility in their
everyday lives. Perhaps they learned something from this
venture. It would be uncharitable to think otherwise. But
whether their experience provided training in the rudiments
of democracy is a very searching question indeed.

I

George Barron, Esq., of Wetherby, decided in 1825 to sell
a small piece of land known as Brick Close on the outskirts

6 See, for instance, L. G. Johnson, The Social Evolution of Industrial Britain
(1959), 87-8; and also G. D. H. Cole, A Short History of the British Working Class
Movement, IL (1926), 45-6. Those who required training in “‘practical democracy”’
in the second quarter of the nineteenth century were not the ‘Industrial Class”’
but the newly enfranchised {£10 ‘‘Middle Class’’ householder.

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 307

of Leeds.‘ The moment was propitious. Since the Napoleonic
War, four thousand houses and several hundred mills and
workshops had been built in the town so that the value of
building land had risen steeply. Those fortunate enough to
own central sites enriched themselves with scarcely any effort
or expense. Others tried to follow in their footsteps by specul-
ating in real estate. Almost every week, local newspapers
advertised land for sale and schemes for new estates. Spec-
ulators in the mid-1820s wanted sites along Woodhouse Lane,
and proposed “‘erecting a ‘New Town of Leeds’’’ on Round-
hay Road, beyond Sheepscar.* At this juncture, with business
everywhere booming and property values soaring to giddy
heights, Barron instructed his solicitor to auction his small
plot of one acre one rood. In 1770 it had fetched £140, in
1802, £410: how much would it now realise?

On 2 June it came under the hammer at the Golden Lion.
Amongst those present was George Heaps of Headingley who
made a living as a cloth agent. Infected by the current fever
of prosperity, he wanted to set himself up in a new line of
business. But he had very little capital. He therefore decided
upon a long shot to make a thousand pounds. Like others at
the auction, he knew that this site off Camp Road, half a
mile north of the Headrow, would be ideal as a location for
““second-class’’ houses. So he outbid all rivals and settled for
the sum of £885. In order to clinch the contract, the buyer
had to put down a 10% deposit. This was either more than
Heaps could spare or more than he wanted to risk alone.
So he called on George Waddington, a retired schoolmaster
whom he knew in Kirkstall and invited him to join the venture.
Waddington agreed and they planned to erect a row of superior
houses of the kind that tradesmen and shopkeepers would be
anxious to buy. Between them, they put down a deposit of
£884. Then they tried to raise a loan to start building. If they
could erect and sell some houses quickly, repay Barron and
their other creditors, they could share what remained between
themselves. At this point, however, their luck ran out. Over-
night, prosperity turned into depression. In the ensuing

7 I wish to thank Mr. G. L. Ford for granting me access to the records of Alfred
Place Building Society. They are as complete as one could hope to find and include
Rent Books, Subscription Ledgers, Tradesmen’s accounts, Journals and Minute
Books, Articles of Agreement, Specifications and Surveyors’ Drawings. Unless
otherwise indicated, the material in the remainder of this article, including cita-
tions, comes from this source.

8 Leeds Mercury, 30 July 1825; 20 August 1825.

308 MISCELLANY

collapse of trade, borrowing became difficult, particularly for
people of their standing. Like a mirage, their hopes faded. Tom
Yates, landlord of the Green Dragon Inn in Guildford Street
(off the Upper-Headrow) listened sympathetically to their
troubles. Then it occurred to him that there was a way out
of their predicament. They could raise money to build by
forming a club. Yates promised to propose this to his regular
clientéle — presumably without mentioning at this stage the
site at Brick Close.

Enough people signified interest in the scheme at the begin-
ning of August for it to be carried a stage further. Yates held
a meeting of those interested on ro August. Besides the
three principals, fifteen others came along; a surgeon, an
assistant overseer, some printers, several building contractors,
a chandler, two brush manufacturers, a cloth drawer, tobacco-
nist, 1ronmonger, dyer, tin-plate worker and a few food
dealers. The landlord outlined the scheme. A terminating
Building Society would be formed to erect superior terrace
houses north of the town. He told his audience, who were
doubtless already aware of the fact, that there was a buoyant
demand for such property, none of which remained vacant
for long. Yates then proposed that everyone who joined should
subscribe £1 a month. This seemed reasonable. His audience
did not consist of wealthy people who could afford foreign
shares or British funds in £100 denominations. The urban
property market was a more feasible investment for regular
savers with modest means. In that year, townsfolk paid some
#150,000 as house rent, mostly to local landlords in the town.
Besides, the erection of houses had a special appeal for the
small saver. He could see and ultimately own what he paid
for. Once built, these particular houses would yield a steady
10%, and the capital value of the property was certain to
rise. Yates urged those in favour — and in view of its advan-
tages it was not difficult to favour the scheme —to elect
officers, name a solicitor and banker, and agree on a committee
to launch the operation.

Those present supported these proposals and elected a com-
mittee of four, including Yates and Waddington. At this junc-
ture, George Heaps offered to sell the club part of his land in
Brick Close. This the meeting gladly accepted, and they
acquired a rectangle of 4,790 square yards at 5/- a yard. To
put a small deposit on their purchase, everybody paid a

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 309

membership fee of £2, and Yates suggested that they continue
to subscribe at the rate of £1 a month for 80 months. At the
end of that time everyone would own a house, and a year or
so later as soon as all creditors had been paid off, the society
would be disbanded. They also agreed to erect twenty-five
houses and increase the membership to this number from
amongst their friends. Finally, the members resolved that
work should start immediately on the first six houses. The
committee was authorised to borrow ‘‘in the most advantageous
manner to effect the same... and. . . to draw up Specifica-
tions and let the Work by estimate.’’

II

At the end of January 1826, the purpose and rules of the
Society were formalised in Articles of Agreement which every
shareholder signed. Their aim was to build ‘‘a number of
dwelling houses . . . equal to the number of shares’’ which
then amounted to thirty-three. The scheme envisaged a row
of uniform dwellings facing east with a common sewer and
causeway and no outbuildings — at least not until the repeal
of this clause later in 1826. When work began on the founda-
tions of a new house, the shareholders would ballot to decide
who would ultimately own it. If the future proprietor then
wanted interior fittings other than those decided upon by the
trustees,” he could claim the sum allocated for this part of
the job and complete the inside as he wished at his own ex-
pense. When finished, each house would be let at an annual
rent fixed by the trustees. Tenants had to pay their rents
twice a year, and undertook to give six months’ notice before
leaving. (If a member tenanted his own futuve house and
refused either to pay rent or to quit, he forfeited his share
and lost his membership.) When every shareholder had a
house, the Society would pay its debts, convey the property
individually to each shareholder and terminate its existence.
Until then the property was to be held by trustees, and a
shareholder could transfer his interest to an outside party.
In fact, any shares forfeited owing to a breach of the rules
were to be sold by public auction.

Provisions to cover the cost of the scheme were of two kinds.

9 The Society’s trustees are discussed below.

320 MISCELLANY

Basic PLAN OF THE TERRACE HOUSES IN ALFRED PLACE

GCELEAR Fo ON ee) Ae ley i oi OF ee ee eee
WEIGHT 6'-o"

FLAGGED PATH

eS yarp [riaccenl

18 4

GROUND
HEIGHT 38-9"

LOW watt |

fi, FOOT PATH

BE pi Rooms

FIRST FLOOR

AT ATTICS
Tile

Notes: (i) ““A washhouse in the back yard, immediately opposite the back door’
was agreed on 1 April 1826. (ii) In June 1830, it was resolved that “any member...
may have a cellar kitchen or Front Cellar upon condition of his being at the
entire additional expense, and also signing an agreement that he will be answer-
able for a rent of 16 Guineas per Annum being regularly paid ... whether such
house be occupied or not...but he shall have the privilege of taking to his
Own use any sum which he may let the house for above the said sum of 16
Guineas.’”’ After No. 16, built 1837, most houses had cellar-kitchens at the rear.

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY SEE

First, all shareholders paid £2 on joining and thereafter 80
monthly subscriptions of £1. ‘“The remainder of the expenses
incurred by the erection of the buildings . . . shall be paid out
of the rents arising from the said buildings . . . unless it shall
be otherwise agreed at a General Meeting’’. Secondly, in order
to buy land and start building, the trustees were to mortgage
the property and later repay the loan out of income.

Operational control was vested in seven trustees elected for
the duration by the shareholders from amongst themselves.
Each year the shareholders elected one trustee to act as
President. The trustees, who met monthly and on each occasion
received 2/6d. for their services, thus implemented the pur-
pose of the Society as they saw fit. Twice a year, in February
and August, the whole body of shareholders were to meet at
the Green Dragon to approve the accounts and vote on
resolutions requiring their sanction. Amendments to the
Articles of Agreement and elections to fill a vacancy amongst
the trustees had to be decided by a ballot of all the members.
Infringement of the rules — absence from monthly meetings,
misbehaviour at general meetings, arrears of subscriptions, a
trustee’s failure to bank income — resulted automatically in
penalties ranging from graded fines to the loss of a share.

In September 1825, long before this constitution was devised
and ratified, the Building Committee had the site surveyed
and saw that with a bit more land they could ultimately erect
a terrace of 35 houses. They immediately drew up specifica-
tions for six houses, and these served later as a model for
the rest. The size and chief characteristics of these dwellings
are summarised below.

Summary of the Specifications

Bricklayer. Foundations “‘to the solid earth ... lay stone founda-
tions not less than four inches thick and eighteen inches broad for
the front and back walls . . . Chimney pipes to be fourteen inches by
ten... » the bricks to be of the kind called best bastard stock . ~The
Bricklayer will . . . also have to carry the drains from each house
to the common sewer down the back road’’.

Mason. ‘‘The stones to be used to be of the best quality from
Woodhouse or Potternewton Quarries’’. Includes sills, flagging inside
and outside the house.

Joiner. Gates, windows, fencing and floors. Two front windows
54 ft. x 44 ft., three rear windows 44 ft. x 34 ft., and one cripple

312 MISCELLANY

window 3 ft. x 2 ft. high in the attic. Floor joists generally 5 in. x
24 in. of “‘the best. dry timber’ at 13 im. spacing.

Plasterer to use plaster ‘“‘not less than two months old’’, and plaster
the cellar walls.

Slater to use Welsh slate, with a 24 in. overlap.

Plumber to fix ‘‘the best second Newcastle Crown glass’’, and use
lead for flashing ‘‘six pounds to the foot’’.

Ivonmongey to provide grates and a kitchen range.

Painter. Front door to be white; surround stone-colour. Back door
and window shutters to be chocolate, the spouts stone-colour. Inside
to be white, and the front palisades green.

If the Society’s site representative judged any work to be faulty,
the contractor had to make it good. Furthermore, materials were
subject to a six-month guarantee. And if a contractor failed to finish
on time, he lost 30% of the agreed remuneration.

Plans were made for two wells in the front garden to supply water
for the whole row. The first, dug in 1826, served the first seventeen
houses. The second, 14 yards deep, was constructed in 1837. In 1841
a pump and cover were added to this well.

Notes

(i) Each dwelling had si windows and thus escaped payment of
window-tax.

(ii) Initially the ground floor windows were to have wooden frame
shutters. On 5 January 1826, it was resolved not to put these at
the front of the house.

(iii) Apart from repainting, cleaning wells and repairing the surface
of the Back Lane, the cost of maintenance work was almost
negligible. Since the Society’s tenants “‘expressed dissatisfaction”’
at the slightest inconvenience, low maintenance costs suggest a
high standard of construction.

Early in September the Committee chose from amongst the
tenders that had been received. Whenever possible, the trustees
awarded contracts to members of the Society associated with
the building trades, irrespective of whether they submitted
the lowest estimate; in this instance, the joiner and painter
were both shareholders. These engagements were due partly
to personal pressures and partly to circumvent the need for
prompt payment as each task was finished. If everything went
according to plan, each house would cost £134. The trustees

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 313

asked the landlord of the Green Dragon to supervise work
at the site in return for £5 a year, and T. Wray, a printer,
agreed to keep the Society’s accounts for £4 a year. By Io
October the foundations for the first six houses had been com-
pleted, and the shareholders held a ballot to choose who should
ultimately own them. Three trustees had the good luck to
receive a house on the first draw.

From all appearances the scheme was making satisfactory
progress. In October when the supply of bricks fell through,
Waddington and Heaps came to the rescue. Early the follow-
ing month the members were perfectly willing to expand the
scheme and promised to find new members. More land was
needed for these extra houses so Heaps and Waddington offered
their remaining 1,974 square yards at 6/- a yard. This they
formally conveyed to the Society, together with the earlier
plot, on 14 November, reserving for themselves all the clay
excavated from the foundations, a right which they had
previously waived. Heaps and Waddington thus secured most
of what they had wanted at the outset. By selling the land
which they bought five months earlier at £885 for £1,790,
they made a profit of £905, excluding receipts from the sale
of clay. The Society inherited their debt of £76094 with Mr
Barron, who accepted a twelve-month promissory note for
this amount at 4% interest. Heaps and Waddington had re-
ceived some £200 in cash and also accepted a twelve-month
promissory note for £734. 11s. od. at 4%. To raise this money
the trustees sacrificed all the income they received during the
first few months and called on members to pay an extra
premium of £2 in November. The Society was thus left with-
out any working capital. In return they had secured a year’s
grace in which to negotiate a loan to meet these debts.

Nobody showed any concern about this state of affairs.
Shares changed hands at a premium of between two and five
guineas in November, and two months later the Society had
thirty members with thirty-three shares. The first six houses
approached completion, and the members agreed at the Febru-
ary General Meeting to rent them for 15 guineas a year each.
Half way through April, Yates gave a dinner to mark the
completion of No. 1, Alfred Place. But celebrations of any
kind were somewhat premature. Although the contractors left
No. 1 in May and No. 2 at the beginning of June, 3 and 4 were
not finished until November, and 5 and 6 in May 1827. The

Sia MISCELLANY

first six houses took twenty-one months to complete. A sixth
of the Society’s programme had been completed in a quarter
or a fifth of the time at its disposal.

This delay was the result of several difficulties. Since the
end of 1825, if not before, the Society began to encounter all
the tribulations such a venture invited. Within a month of
starting work, the brickmaker, Akeroyd of Armley, failed ‘‘to
furnish a sufficient supply of bricks to carry on the building’’.
Heaps averted a suspension of work by offering 20,000 old
bricks at 20/- a thousand, and Yates was instructed to buy
more of the same kind ‘‘so that the Buildings may not have
occasion to stand for want of a proper supply’’. Not until
December did the Society find another bricklayer willing to
supply new bricks at 30/- a thousand. A few months later
construction was interrupted, on this occasion for a more
serious reason. Francis, the joiner and a shareholder in the
Society, drifted into bankruptcy along with many others in
Leeds at this time of depression. In September 1825 the trustees
had given him a contract worth £390. By February 1826 he
had completed work valued at £228 and had been paid about
half this amount. To ease his position, Francis assigned his
share and the balance due on his contract to his creditors.
This embarrassed the Society. Not only had it no ready cash,
but its liabilities with regard to Francis were open to conflict-
ing interpretations. After legal advice the trustees terminated
their contract with Francis, bought timber from Maude and
Co., and hired a joiner and assistant to complete the wood-
work on a weekly basis at a joint-wage of 36/-. Work started
again. But the Francis affair dragged on throughout the spring
of 1827. Contending creditors sought to absolve the Society
from any obligation to their rivals, and eventually the matter
had to be settled in court. Francis was declared a bankrupt;
one creditor obtained his share in the Society and the trustees
had to pay the balance of his contract to another creditor.

More disturbing in the long run than these contingencies
were changes in membership. After selling their land, Heaps
and Waddington lost interest in the welfare of the Society and
proceeded to quarrel over the precise terms of their agree-
ments. Waddington sold one share in December 1825 and his
second as soon as the trustees paid the balance for their land
in the following November. Heaps followed suit. Six others
also left, mostly builders who had failed to secure, or who had

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY Br5

executed, the contracts they originally hoped for. Three more
members, including the surgeon, failed to keep up their
subscriptions and forfeited their shares. These defections in-
jured both the standing of the Society and its income. In
October 1826 a new President appealed to “‘the present mem-
bers . . . to use every exertion to procure new members to
‘complete the numbers . . . [mew shareholders] to pay arrears
and 5% interest on them within nine months of entry’’. The
Society which began with twenty-one members had only
thirteen at the end of 1826 and never more than twenty for
the remainder of its existence. Consequently the original
scheme had ultimately to be scaled down.

The most acute problems facing the trustees were inevitably
of a financial nature. It soon became plain that they could no
longer afford ‘‘to pay promptly, as the Buildings Proceed’’.
Apart from debts amounting to £1,500 for land, the trustees
accepted tenders worth more than £800 in September 1825.
By the end of the year several tradesmen wanted interim pay-
ment for the work they had already done. But after paying
Heaps and Waddington, the trustees had no money left. The
need for a loan thus became a matter of urgency, not to re-
deem their promissory notes as had been intended, but to meet
current construction costs. In February 1826 the trustees met
“Mr Richardson and Mr Oastler relative to the advance to
be made to the Society’’. Early in March they frankly appealed
for help.

As the Buildings now erecting are fast approaching towards com-
pletion, and as the time is drawing near when we shall have to
meet our engagements, it is necessary that we should be making
provision for the ways and means to supply the demand upon

ls =.. » tf youccan tét the . .. Society have {200 of the money
intended to be advanced to the Society, by the 1st of April next.

Pressed in such terms, Oastler and Richardson prudently de-
cided to withdraw their offer. Halfway through April the
Society s: bankers; Messrs. Perfect.and Co. ‘‘readily and
cheerfully granted them an overdraft on the Bills now coming
due’’. In addition, Edmund Maude, the timber merchant who
was engaged after Francis went, waived settlement on his
account for the time being in return for 5% interest; his bill
for £153 in 1826-27 was not paid until 1833. Several con-
tractors were persuaded to accept a share in the Society. Their
bills were offset by crediting them with the back subscriptions

316 MISCELLANY

they were due to pay. For instance, Thomas Varley, a brick-
worker, executed work amounting to £134. By the end of
November 1826 he had been paid £83. Thereupon he accepted
a share and fifteen previous monthly subscriptions were
debited against the balance which the Society owed him. In
1828 he agreed to take a second share and not until April 1830
did Varley pay any monthly subscriptions in cash. A plumber
in 1827 and a joiner in 1829 both accepted shares in part
settlement of their accounts.

These devices did not obviate the need for a substantial loan
which the trustees tried again to raise outside the town. In
June a Wetherby solicitor almost persuaded a Dr Geldart to
grant a mortgage of £2,000. But one, Nicholas Finley, who
“‘was over at Kirk Deighton the other day, prejudiced Dr
Geldart very much against the security’’. All that the Society
could raise was a twelve-month joint mortgage of £1,500 at
5% from Richardson and Metcalfe, flaxspinners in Knares-
borough, and a yeoman of Bishop Thornton. With this they
could pay Barron £829 for land and settle the more pressing
claimants. But the trustees still had to find another mortgage
before July 1827, if possible a better one, to replace this loan.
In February 1828, John Pullein of Wetherby furnished £2,000
at 5% ‘‘for the purpose of discharging the said sum of £1,500
and for other wants’’. This accommodation lasted until 1830.
Then Payne, Ford and Warren, the Society’s solicitors,
arranged a new mortgage with William Chadwick of Arksey
for £3,000 at 5%. Thereafter the Society paid Chadwick £150
annually for 13 years and eventually had to devise a way
of raising the principal in order to regain the title of their
property.

During the first year of its existence, therefore, the Society’s
problems outweighed its achievements. The shareholders had
been tricked into paying too much for the site. Building was
behind schedule, shareholders left, and unexpected financial
difficulties arose for which no provision had been made. None
of the tradesmen and shopkeepers involved had yet shown the
ability required to conduct an enterprise of this sort.

{il

According to the Articles of Agreement, the trustees had
to build a house for each shareholder. All the houses erected

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 317

conformed to the basic plan and specification outlined in the
previous section. Work commenced on a new pair of houses
in August 1828 and they were completed the following year.
In May 1830 the trustees entered into contracts for four more
houses, and in the following month members agreed that ‘‘as
soon as the four houses now in hand are finished that the other
four be immediately begun’’. By 1833 these dwellings had
been completed, bringing the total in the terrace up to sixteen.
Therefore, at the time when the members should have finished
their subscriptions and each have a house, only half the build-
ing programme had been completed. Instead of forging ahead
with the other half, however, the trustees allowed four years
to pass before soliciting any more tenders. In July 1837 they
began to erect another four houses; in March 1839 four more
were scheduled and two years later, contracts were accepted
for ‘‘the remaining four houses’’. When this work had been
completed in 1842, the trustees took steps to bring the Society
to a close. They had taken seventeen years to put up a terrace
of twenty-eight houses.

By comparison with the final cost, the extra time taken to
complete the project does not seem excessive. At the start
members agreed to erect superior houses. They probably ex-
pected each house to cost around sixty pounds for land and
twice as much for labour and materials, in all about £180. In
fact, when the Society disbanded, over £9,000 had been spent,
an average of £325 a house. Instead of subscribing £86 per
share, members paid £186 and a further £100 to redeem the
mortgage in 1843.

What had gone wrong? Why did the affairs of the Society
ship from bad to worse? Did the investors get a worthwhile
return on their investment?

IV

One way of answering such questions is to consider in turn
the chief factors bearing on the timing and expense of the
scheme. Initially the trustees proposed building five houses a
year. for seven years. Instead by 1832 only sixteen had been
completed. No further building was scheduled after 1830 for
seven years. Then twelve houses went up in five years. Delays
in construction were obviously of two kinds. Even when the
trustees contrived to build, concurrent financial limitations

318 MISCELLANY

affected the scale and tempo at which they could proceed,
delaying the project all along the line. Beyond this, however,
between 1833 and 1836, no attempt was made to do any build-
ing whatsoever and this calls for a different explanation.
Halfway through 1830 two of the Society’s eight tenants
gave in their notice to quit. Normally this would not have
raised any difficulties. But the houses remained vacant on
this occasion. At a General Meeting early the following year
the members accepted a resolution ‘‘that as two of the Houses
are now Empty and the rent being stated as an objection. . .
this Meeting reduce the Rent in order to accommodate tenants,
such rent not to be lower than £15 per year’’. By May 1831
annual rents had been reduced by 15/-. Notwithstanding this
reduction the two dwellings remained vacant and no one sought
to rent the recently completed houses. In July 1832 the Secre-
tary wrote
... there was a great depreciation and difficulty in letting property
of the description in the possession of the said Society .. . half
of the Buildings were Empty and had been so for a considerable

Time, and that others were likely to become so unless a reduction
was made .~.

Rents were lowered in August to 12 guineas a year. But three
years passed before tenants occupied all 16 houses again. Then
in 1837 the trustees raised rents by 8/- a year, and a General
Meeting later agreed that ‘‘if the owner can get £15 a year,
he be allowed to receive the difference between £13 and £15
himself’’. Subsequently tenants paid a variety of rents vary-
ing from 12 guineas to £15 a year.

The trustees stopped building therefore when the demand
for such houses fell. There had been an outburst of residential
building during the industrial depression of the later 1820s.
The proportion of empty houses in the town was probably
rising until trade began to revive after 1830. It stood at more
than seven per cent in the 1831 Census. Consequently
residential building declined, whilst a large number of new
factories were erected. With vacant houses and reduced rents,
with tenants threatening to quit en bloc unless every complaint
received instant attention, the trustees had no alternative but
to suspend construction.

When conditions changed the Society restarted building.
Depression affected a large part of local industry in 1837 and
factory building slowed down to a halt. In all probability the

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 319

proportion of vacant houses fell considerably because for
several years past population had been increasing without any
commensurate increase in the number of houses. Alfred Street
had its full complement of tenants. Once again the trustees
began to go ahead with the project. In the previous year, 1836,
they had ‘‘rejected’’ two estimates as ‘‘too high’’. The tenders
accepted in 1837 were slightly lower than any previous ones,
as the following table shows.

Contract Cost per house!l9

£
1825/6 é 173 (approximately)
1828 ; 178
1830/33 W738
1837 : 162
1839 : 167
1841 ; 146

The Society’s two phases of building activity, hence its life,
were thus governed by local fluctuations in building and trade.

But this does not explain why building was not accelerated
before 1830 or after 1837. Why did the Society build no more
than four or six houses at a time? Part of the answer lies in
the difficulty of erecting a large number of houses along a
terrace simultaneously. More important, the Society’s financial
position precluded operations on a larger scale, particularly
during its early years. After paying interest on their mortgage,
the trustees had less than three hundred pounds a year to spend
on building before 1832. After that the position improved.
No new houses were erected for several years, debts were paid
off and a large working balance accumulated. After 1837,
tradesmen’s accounts could be settled without difficulty. Then
the Society erected four houses at a time, instead of the pairs
it had found expedient to put up between 1827 and 1831. To
this extent the project gained in momentum towards its con-
clusion.

Time cost money. The length of time taken to complete the
project added to expenses. The mortgage had to be carried for a
longer period. Fees for the trustees, a rent collector, an archi-
tect and a solicitor mounted with the passage of time. Loss of
income arising from vacant premises and the expense of
maintenance, both of which came from an individual owner’s

10 This cost covers foundations, brickwork, plumbing and glazing, slating,

plastering, woodwork, mason’s work and ironwork. Ten different contractors were
engaged to construct each house.

320 MISCELLANY

purse as soon as he became the legal owner of a house, had
to be carried by the Society as a whole for a longer period than
had been anticipated. As a rough estimate, the extra ten years
taken to complete the scheme cost the shareholders an addi-
tional £2,000 or $70 a house.

V

Throughout its existence the Society’s finances remained
in a precarious state. The intention had been to mortgage the
property at the start to pay for the site and help towards the
initial expenses of building. Remaining costs and interest on
the loan were to be met from the members’ subscriptions. At
a later stage, rents would augment the Society’s income which
would then cover the expense of building and pay off the
mortgage. This arrangement was practicable provided that in
the long run outlays were realistically matched by income;
and provided that any new factor which threatened to disturb
this arrangement was offset by counter action. In theory there
was no reason why the scheme should not work efficiently. If
building went according to plan, total outlays on construction
and mortgage charges over a ten year period (1825-1835)
would amount to almost £6,500; and total income from seven
years’ subscriptions and ten years’ rents would come to
slightly more than £6,500. In practice, however, the trustees
faced a plethora of financial embarrassment due on the one
hand to executive shortcomings and on the other to unforeseen
developments which upset the balance between income and
expenditure.

Without any doubt, the original scheme was modified and
ineptly administered so as to generate extra expenses. In
November 1825 the trustees acquired an extra piece of land
which remained unused. This necessitated a larger mortgage
which had to be paid for at the rate of 5% and eventually the
land was sold at a loss of three hundred pounds. Four months
later, in March, 1826, the trustees decided on certain extras
and these modifications applied to all subsequent buildings.
A separate wash-house was built in the back yard; shelves
were fitted on the cellar wall and either side of the kitchen
range. All this added to expense. Furthermore, legal costs
mounted owing to frequent changes in the mortgage during
the early years and, as more houses went up, so too did the

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY B28

size of the mortgage. The trustees simply borrowed more as
their security increased its value. But this did not result in a
faster rate of building. It merely doubled the annual burden
of loan charges at a time when the Society’s current income
was rising and its long-term obligations should have remained
stable. One final example of ineptitude. The trustees never
accepted the lowest tender for a job. On one occasion, con-
fronted with seven bids ranging from £215 to £298, they chose
the fourth lowest at £235. Assuming that each tradesman
would have executed the specification to the last letter, it
appears that the trustees spent too much on construction, just
as they paid too much for the land. In 1841, when one con-
tractor offered to build the last four houses from start to finish
for £520, the trustees chose nine individual tenders amount-
ing to between £600 and £700. This policy originated in the
preferential treatment which tradesmen who were members
of the Society received over outsiders. It persisted because
those administering the scheme wanted to favour a particular
bricklayer, joiner or painter. But this practice, together with
others already mentioned, simply raised costs.

Another financial shortcoming arose from deficiencies in
income. This roused trustees to outbursts of indignation at
General Meetings because it was so clearly something beyond
their immediate control and therefore a cloak for their own
failings. One aspect of this deficiency was the extent to which
members fell behind with their monthly subscriptions. During
the life of the Building Society only two-fifths of the share-
holders paid regularly enough to avoid disciplinary action.
In other words, none of this minority defaulted for six months
at a stretch. During the first quinquennium ten shareholders
exceeded the time limit, and as much as half the amount due
from shareholders was frequently not forthcoming. This was
a serious loss. In part it explains why the trustees resorted
to higher mortgages. Furthermore, though defaulters forfeited
their shares, this did not improve the Society’s finances. New
members had to be found to compensate for their loss. But
membership shrank from 25 people with 33 shares in Decem-
ber 1825 to 18 people with 20 shares in 1830. Between 1825
and 1833 twenty-seven shares were sold, most at a consider-
able discount; for instance, soon after the decision had been
taken to continue shareholders’ subscriptions beyond their
original time limit, Cowell sold a share in May 1833 on which

322 MISCELLANY

he had paid £95 for £45. With fewer members and less in-
come, the trustees could not hope to complete the scheme that
had been initially planned.

A further loss of income arose whenever houses stood un-
tenanted. On an average tenants stayed for thirty-five months.
With such a frequent turnover some income was lost during
transfers of tenancy. Moreover, some tenants failed to pay
their rents and six months passed before they could be evicted.
But more serious than these minor losses were the houses which
stood empty for long periods between 1831 and 1835. These
vacancies account more than anything else for the fact that
whereas the trustees might have expected £3,515 from rents,
they received only £2,703. In a rather special sense the
Society “‘lost’’ an even larger amount than this. With reduc-
tions in rent each house earned less than the fifteen guineas
a year fixed at the outset. If rents had remained at their initial
level, and if there had been no long vacancies, income from
this source would have been £4,199, that is, over half as
much again.

Arrears in subscriptions, the annual cost of a £3,000 mort-
gage, mounting debts — £737 in December 1831 — building
modifications not provided for in the original budget, a flight
of shareholders, the difficulty of securing tenants, and the fact
that members had paid the total subscription stipulated in the
Articles of Agreement, produced a crisis in 1832. The members
had to choose between two courses of action. Either they could
cut their losses and dissolve the Society or they could continue
to pay for a modified scheme. At the General Meeting in March
the trustees suggested the second alternative to the minority
of shareholders who bothered to come along.

It would have given your Committee sincere pleasure had there
been more flattering prospects to lay before the Society. They
find that there is at present several outstanding debts beside
the Mortgage, incurred in completing the present erections and
on other incidental and necessary expenses connected with the
Society; but they still hope that by economy, perseverance and
unity, the operations of the Society may ultimately be brought
to a satisfactory conclusion . . . We are decidedly of the opinion
that the monthly subscriptions must be continued or the concern
must be abandoned, and in the present depreciated state of prop-
erty, the whole capital at present invested sunk, the Debts un-
liquidated, together with the large Mortgage on the premises,

render such a measure imperative. The Houses themselves are
of such a description as were never contemplated by the framers

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 328

of the Rule and amount to more than Double the sum already
Subscribed. Besides had there been no other motive it is due in
equity and justice to the Members who have not already drawn
their houses that the contributions should not cease until their
erection are completed |... Your Committee cannot conclude
without strongly impressing upon the minds of Members that
much of the future prospects of the Society depends upon the
letting of the property. Much has been lost in this respect; there-
fore they hope and recommend every member to exert himself
in this individual capacity in order to attain so desirable an end.

Those present agreed to continue paying their subscriptions
and did so for a time with more regularity than in the past.
Rents were lowered again and collected each month by a
tenant who received £8 a year for his services. The number
of shares was limited to twenty-eight and amendments to the
constitution gave shareholders a more effective voice in the
affairs of the Society.

But time could only be bought at a price, in terms of
mortgage and maintenance costs. Cleaning wells, paving the
back lane, contributing towards the surfacing of Camp Road,
painting houses, repairing fences, replacing slates, all these
things swelled the Society’s expenses. So did unforeseen legal
costs, an architect’s fee of £14 in 1841 and a reward of £20
in 1843. Instead of constructing the last twelve houses for
£1,700, building costs alone amounted to £1,900 after 1832
and total costs to more than £4,000.

The whole financial scene can best be viewed by summarising
total income and expenditure for the entire period up to 1842.
It is possible to show this only in an approximate fashion
because a bookkeeper falsified the records after 1839.

Expenditure £ Income es
Land . . I77eo- * Subseriptions . » "6;2719
Mortgage charges , 5) ,668007 Eines : : : 35
Construction costs, Rent : Ore
28 houses : :, AE OOO @ Sale of land : ; IIo
Legal costs 500
Cost of administration : 300 Gross income y 0,067
Maintenance, roadwork, etc. 780 Less loss by fraud : 373
9,880 Net income : . 8,694

On the face of this account outlays exceed receipts by £1,186
and a postscript needs adding to explain what happened dur-
ing the Society’s last twelve months. At the end of 1842 the

E

324 MISCELLANY

shareholders agreed to disband the Society but a year elapsed
before this took place. The records for this period are extremely
deficient. In all probability, a bank loan enabled the Society
to repay Chadwick’s mortgage and retrieve its titles. The
sixteen members left in the Society then agreed to advance
£100 apiece by 20 January 1843 towards discharging the
bank loan. Fifteen of the members did raise £1,927 and £1,135
was duly paid to the bank whereupon the trustees received
their title deeds and conveyed a house to each member. At
the end of November 18432 the Society had a credit balance
of £158 and at a final meeting in July 1847, bills for £31 were
paid, £74 put to reserve, and £51 distributed at 36/3d. a
share. Broadly speaking, the members subscribed £1,876
(net) and after mid-1843 an additional sum of £2094 was spent
by the trustees. Therefore total expenditure becomes £10,174
and income £10,570. It is impracticable to go further than
this. Probably spending was slightly higher than the figure
indicates. In any event the sum spent exceeded the anticipated
outlay by nearly £4,000.

VI

Some, if not all, of the Society’s financial embarrassments
can be attributed to the character of the people associated with
the venture and the manner in which they conducted their
affairs. When the scheme was first canvassed, those present
— small business proprietors, building contractors, and white
collar workers — were full of enthusiasm. The chance to be-
come a landlord of a superior house and perhaps to secure a
building contract was precisely the kind of opportunity such
people wanted. So willing were they for the scheme to start
that a small minority were allowed to begin building before
a constitution had been drawn up and ratified. Despite early
setbacks and despite the general depression of trade in the
town, the Society’s shares changed hands at a premium until
the end of 1825.

Soon they came to regret their impulsive haste. Wadding-
ton and Heaps repudiated verbal undertakings made when
they sold their land. At a General Meeting in May 1826 they
“‘were requested to forego one-half of the profits of the old
Building standing on the corner of the property in Alfred
Place . . . on the ground that there exists an understanding

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 325

among the Members that it was purchased along with the
land’’.** That this pair made a hundred per cent profit on
Brick Close before clearing out shows how easy it was to
hoodwink the majority of the shareholders. The reason for
this turns on the type of men involved. Each believed that
for £1 a month and without any personal inconvenience he
would own a house within seven years. Meantime his savings
were perfectly safe and the success of the scheme never seemed
in doubt. Accordingly, most shareholders left the enterprise
to its promoters, none of whom had the skill to manage such
a complex venture.

At the outset the trustees consisted of Waddington, the re-
tired schoolmaster, and Yates, landlord of the Green Dragon,
and five others — a surgeon, tinplate-worker, ironmonger and
two printers. Within a year it became obvious that building
was not proceeding according to plan, and one printer, the
surgeon and the ironmonger disposed of their shares and left.
Yates and Waddington lost their popularity and made them-
selves scarce. Many members wanted to dispose of their shares,
and did so if they could find buyers. Others simply allowed
their subscriptions to lapse. To replace the trustees who had
withdrawn, the members elected two tradesmen, a whitesmith
and a cloth drawer. Together with the remaining printer and
Kirk, the tinplate-worker, whom the shareholders elected
President, this quartet took control of the Society. Waddington
left and Yates died in 1828. For a time the new management
put fresh life into the Society’s activities. Kirk appealed to
members to introduce new shareholders, promised to imple-
ment the original scheme in full, secured a bigger mortgage
and went ahead with building. The result was that only one
share was sold during his year of Presidency and members
paid their monthly subscriptions on time, though the income
from this source declined by £24 owing to the large defection
of shareholders the previous year.

The success of this revival was ultimately jeopardised by
Kirk’s failure to reduce the scheme to its original size. The
commitments of the Society could have been lowered consider-
ably by building cheaper and fewer houses. But the trustees
pursued a larger and more expensive programme than that
originally anticipated. This, amongst other reasons, caused
the Society’s debts to mount to £900 by 1830 and made inevit-

11 My italics.

326 MISCELLANY

able a larger mortgage. Thereafter interest charges alone
reached almost £200 a year. By contrast subscriptions brought
in only £246 in 1829, £292 in 1830 and £216 in 1831, and
rents £99, 4131 and £06 respectively. Thus the margin left
for building was never more than £145, £223 and £112 in
these years. Unless the Society could continue to build on
credit the scale of its operations was bound to be very limited.

Nonetheless, Kirk managed the Society’s affairs without any
serious crisis for five years. The few shareholders who attended
General Meetings were presumably satisfied with the trustees’
bi-annual statements explaining why progress was slow, and
they demonstrated their confidence in Kirk by re-electing him
President. Yet after 1827 their enthusiasm for the scheme
ebbed away once more. Former symptoms of disquiet re-
appeared, subscriptions became erratic. Each year three or
four members disposed of their shares. Nevertheless, unless
the Society’s affairs took a sharp turn for the worse, share-
holders had no alternative but to leave everything to the
trustees and let the Society run its agreed life. The trustees
had been elected for the duration and any amendment to the
Articles of Agreement required the assent of two-thirds of the
shareholders at a General Meeting, no easy task for a dissident
member to arrange: Of.the five trustees, only <Kirk> “the
President, and Hawksworth, a printer, had been associated
with the scheme from the outset. The remainder, including
Joseph Mathers, a Burmantofts millwright, were friends of
Kirk. Needless to say they ensured that members had no
erounds for complaint and reported on their stewardship in
the most favourable terms possible.

After 1831 when external circumstances swept the Society
towards the rocks, a crisis inevitably arose. Houses stood
empty. The income from rents fell £35 and from subscrip-
tions £76 in one year. Between 1828 and 1831 thirteen shares
had been sold at a substantial discount. And the time was
drawing near when subscriptions were due to terminate. Kirk
dealt with this situation by painting a bleak future for the
shareholders if the Society disbanded. So the members agreed
to continue paying their subscriptions in return for some
constitutional changes. Fewer houses would be built and any
variations in structure, for instance, a cellar kitchen, together
with the expenses of repainting, were to be paid for by the
ultimate owner of each house. Furthermore, land that would

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 327

not now be built on was to be leased or sold. But the same
trustees were still entrusted with the management of the
Society.

Three years later, a fresh crisis arose. Between 1833 and
1835 over £800 had been paid in subscriptions and nearly
#500 as rent, yet not a house had been built and the Society
owed nearly £3,500. Early in 1835 a rumour spread that the
President’s son, Wheatley Kirk, a pianoforte dealer, was in
financial difficulties. In June the members discovered that the
President had given his two shares to a Mr Gibson as security
for his son’s debts. When it became clear that Wheatley Kirk
would soon be declared a bankrupt, the shareholders grew
anxious about their position.*” By this time only eight founder
members were left, two of them trustees. During the past
decade there had been thirty new members, ten of whom still
remained. Their numbers included two publicans, a milkman,
a carrier, several shopkeepers, three building contractors, a
widow, schoolmistress, a butler from Middleton Lodge at
Ilkley, a Wakefield corn factor and a Roundhay farmer. Kirk’s
predicament presented this group with an opportunity to give
vent to their disgruntled feelings and to introduce radical
changes in the management of the Society. They elected
Hawksworth, the other founder-trustee, as President but the
office henceforth became titular rather than executive. Control
was vested in a Committee on which all members served in
rotation. And the Committee asked the tenant of No. 16,
Jenkins, who was employed as a confidential clerk by the
Society’s solicitors, to look after matters involving daily
administration — collecting money, going to the Bank, and
keeping accounts — in return for £10 a year. After Kirk’s
departure the Society once more took on a new lease of life.
Members regularly paid their subscriptions, no shares were
offered for sale, and in 1836 the Committee asked contractors
to submit tenders but postponed building when the estimates
turned out to be “‘too high’’.

During the next four years some progress was made and a
better spirit prevailed. The Committee put up the last twelve
houses, paid off the Society’s debts, set money aside to re-

12 In 1837 Wheatley Kirk was gaoled as a bankrupt and the Society tried to
auction the ex-President’s shares. But Mr. Gibson retained them until 1839 and
would hand them over only in return for cash. See the Leeds Intelligencer, 17
June 1837, 24 June 1837.

328 MISCELLANY

deem the mortgage, and kept every house tenanted. Apart
from the two shares forfeited by Kirk, only five other shares
changed hands after 1835. But the Society did not reach its
goal without a last-minute emergency. At the beginning of
February 1843, the Committee received a letter from its secre-
tary, Jenkins, postmarked Liverpool. To their horror, they
discovered that having embezzled their funds for several years,
he was fleeing to North America.

It was the usual story.*’ Jenkins had been born in the
country just outside London during the war. His father, who
was an innkeeper, moved to Leeds when the boy was ten and
sent him to school in the town. Jenkins became a copying clerk
and learnt to play several musical instruments. He married,
had two children and before he was thirty occupied a position
of trust with a firm of solicitors, Payne, Eddison and Ford
at a salary of £140 a year. What more could he want with
a secure, well-paid job, a family and status? ‘‘A woman of
loose character’’ and drink. To pay for his pleasures he found
it necessary to defraud both his employers and the Building
Society. That neither business tumbled to his tricks for three
years testifies to his skill and their laxness. But in November
1842 when the Building Society’s shareholders resolved to
disband and pay off the mortgage, Jenkins realised he would
be found out and skipped away. The Society offered a reward
for his arrest and he was brought back to Leeds and subse-
quently transported for ten years. But this did not enable them
to regain the £373 that had been taken. Nor would Payne,
Eddison and Ford shoulder responsibility for what had
happened. The Society thus suffered at the hands of financially
criminal servants both at the beginning and at the end of its
lite:

Fraud, financial improvidence, oligarchic control and apathy
harrassed the Society throughout its existence. This was only
to be expected amongst people with such narrow horizons
bent on the pursuit of individual material gain. Inevitably
these shopkeepers and tradesmen operated at a low level of
efficiency, even of integrity. Most of the difficulties they en-
countered were of their own making, and appropriately enough
they had to foot the bill.

13 For a full account, see the Leeds Intelligencer, 11 February 1843, 18 March
1843, 25 March 1843.

ALFRED PLACE TERMINATING BUILDING SOCIETY 329

VII

It is refreshing to pass at times beyond the faceless behaviour
of large aggregates and examine human activity at close
quarters. Man’s endeavour radiates qualities of comedy and
pathos that are absent in statistics. This venture is no exception.
To further their own interests a score of shopkeepers and
masters combined to build a terrace of houses. And they erected
a substantial row, structurally sound albeit with primitive san-
itary arrangements. For a century, until their demolition a few
years ago, these houses sheltered a succession of tenants. Yet,
leaving aside the speculators who provided the land and the
contractors who put up the property, what did the shareholders
gain from it all? The sum subscribed was three times what had
been agreed on at the outset. And when in the 1840s each
member owned a house, the character of the district changed.
Factories, workshops, and rows of back-to-back artisan dwell-
ings sprang up along Camp Road obliterating its rural aspect.
The result was that Alfred Place housed lower middle-class
tenants for only a short span of its life. White-collar workers
were followed by factory hands. But, even if the newcomers
had been willing to pay £13 annual rent, the shareholders
would still not have secured a really worth-while return on
their outlay. Neglecting the fact that most shareholders had
been out of pocket many years before each one owned a house,
neglecting too the costs of upkeep once they assumed owner-
ship, the best imaginable yield on their outlay was 4%. The
effective returns must have been a good deal lower than this.

Had they foreseen the complications and consequences of
the scheme, these shopkeepers and master craftsmen would
never have embarked upon it. They participated, expecting
a secure outlet for their savings and a chance of certain gain.
But their expectations were confounded. Human factors in
the short run and later the advancing frontiers of urban masses
dispelled their illusions. They had made no allowance for de-
ceit, nor for inept management. They knew nothing about
the cycle of market fluctuations. When demand fell, building
stopped. But when, ten years later, the rising population of
Leeds surged along Camp Road, Alfred Place was engulfed
in a sea of cheap property which lowered its value. At every
turn the expectations of the original participants were falsified
and new shareholders had to be recruited.

Those who joined the Society in 1825 did not imagine that

330 MISCELLANY

it would flounder as it did. They had an unsophisticated vision
of the future shaped by certain recent events. It was this which
bred optimism and agreement. What they were about to do
involved no risk; businessmen, especially small ones, bet on
certainties because they cannot afford to take risks. Subse-
quent setbacks arose from ignorance. The factors which they
had taken into account in 1825 were not the most important
ones. They had no comprehension of economic and social
development beyond what impinged on their short run
interests. To this extent, their efforts were bound to fail. But
the magnitude of their failure was due to human factors, to
one or two persons taking advantage of the group, and to
poor leadership. Yet though the scheme did not progress
according to plan, like many other ventures of the day, it was
completed — at a loss. What from the shareholders’ point of
view seems a disappointing use of their resources, appears
from a social viewpoint as the provision of a sound row of
terrace houses which satisfied a basic need for shelter for more
than a century. More important than material gain or loss,
the shareholders may have reaped the benefit of understand-
ing their society a little better. They were perhaps wiser if not
richer. Wiser not because they knew how to avoid economic
hazards in the future, nor because they might well imagine
that success comes to those who sacrifice themselves on the
altar of efficiency. If they learned anything — and there is
no evidence to show that anyone did —- it would be how to
organise for effective action. All institutions harbour seeds
of self-destruction. The shareholders of this Society joined on
an equal footing. But the distribution of power was unequal.
The rules adopted at the outset vested authority in an en-
trenched minority and did not ensure the active participation
of all. Politically the Society was a failure. The apathy of the
shareholders was as much to blame of course as the intransi-
gence of the trustees. But this apathy was to some extent the
result of rules which placed authority in the hands of a few.
This led to excessive individualism which inevitably proved
detrimental. If the shareholders of Alfred Place Building
Society learned nothing, perhaps we can.

[The Hon. Editors are most grateful to Mr Robert Bennet,
M.I.Mech.E., of Collingham, for drawing the plan for the
block. |

JO > Eby bE Rosa ahae, PEOPLE.
THE TRUE EMIGRANTS GUIDE?

by MICHAL BROOK

JOSEPH BARKER (1806-75) is best remembered today for his
life’s pilgrimage from Wesleyan Methodism to Primitive
Methodism, by way of the Methodist New Connexion, the
Christian Brethren (his own creation), Unitarianism, and
openly avowed freethought.* But in middle life this remark-
able man wielded, from Wortley, near Leeds, extensive infiu-
ence over the workers of the North of England. This influence
was used for a period to considerable effect, to promote the
belief that a free man could only live and prosper in the United
States of America.

Barker was born in Bramley, near Leeds, in 1806. His
father was a handloom weaver and small shopkeeper and both
his parents were zealous Wesleyan Methodists. Recalling his
youth, he wrote in later life ‘‘I felt, and others felt as well,
as if prosperity was fled for ever from our own part of the
world. We had an idea that things were better in America;
but as for Europe, its light seemed to have entirely gone out,
and its glory and the welfare of its people seemed to have
perished for ever . . . There was one way to secure a regular
supply of food and that was by becoming a soldier.’’ He con-
tinued, speaking of his parents and their friends, ‘‘Emigration
to America was their only hope.’’’ In his adolescence he leit
Wesleyan Methodism for the New Connexion, and in 1828
became a minister in that body, labouring successively at
Liverpool (1828-9), Hanley (1829-30), Halifax (1830-1),
Blyth and Newcastle upon Tyne (1831-2), Sunderland
(1832-3), Sheffield (1833-5), Chester (1835-7), Mossley
(1837-9), and Gateshead (1839-41). During this period he be-
came well-known as a proponent of Temperance, and an
antagonist of Socialism. He was also becoming more heterodox

1 People, I, No. 16. ‘The People shall be the true emigrant’s guide.’

2 The life of Joseph Barker, written by himself. Edited by his nephew John

Thomas Barkey (London, 1880), strongly emphasises his religious tribulations and
plays down his other interests.

3 Tbid., 33, quoting Barker’s original autobiography, The History and Con-
fessions of a Man, as put forth by himself (Wortley, 1846).

332 MISCELLANY

in his religious opinions, and in 1841 was expelled from the
Methodist New Connexion for denying the divine ordinance
of Baptism, taking with him twenty-nine congregations and
over 4,000 members.

The Rev. Franklin Howorth, Unitarian Minister at Bury,
Lancashire, described the secession*: ‘‘Many left the Connex-
ion on his expulsion, particularly in the churches at Newcastle-
on-Tyne, Gateshead, Bradford, Staley-Bridge, Mottram, and
Newton. A numerous body, with near thirty preachers,
separated from Conference in the Staffordshire Potteries.
Considerable secessions took place at Hawarden, Stockport,
Dukinfield, Oldham, Leeds, Delph, Mossley, Hirst, Ashton,
Manchester, Pendleton, Bolton, Bramley, Huddersfield, Berry
Brow, Paddock, Lindley, South Shields, and in many other
places.’’ All the places mentioned are in the industrial areas
of the West Riding, Lancashire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, and
the North-East, and Barker had ministered in or near almost
all of them. The Barkerites came to be known as Christian
Brethren, and Howorth believed that in 1846, when he was
writing, they had about 200 societies, each with about thirty
members. A detailed discussion of the Christian Brethren
would be out of place here,’ but it may be said that their
theological outlook was close to that of the new, non-scriptural
school of Unitarians, like that of William Ellery Channing,
and the Quakers and Independent Methodists, who rejected
the idea of an ordained ministry. Howorth also criticised them
for having “‘no provision for the regular maintenance of public
worship’ and “‘no means of duly drawing out the social ele-
ments of our nature in connection with religion.’’ They were
mostly working-class people, and at this period functioned
mainly as more or less anarchic irregulars on the flank of the
main body of staid, middle-class Unitarians.

The Christian Brethren were largely held together by Barker
himself, through his tireless preaching tours, not only through-
out the North of England, but as far afield as London, Ireland,
Exeter, and Glasgow,° and through The Christian, which he

4 “Anti-Trinitarian Churches in connexion with Joseph Barker’’, by F. Howorth,
in J. R. Beard, ed., Unitarianism Exhibited in its Actual Condition (London,
1846), 165-71.

5 One written from a Unitarian point of view is H. McLachlan, ‘‘The Christian
Brethren movement’’ in his The Story of a Nonconformist Library (Manchester,
O23)

© Christian, VW, Nos. 26, 27,733 [1845], Li; Neo: 44, EL, Newi6or [1846]. Phe dtinse
dated number of The Christian was III, No. 61 (January 1847).

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 333

published as nearly fortnightly as possible from 1844 to 1848.
This periodical which was printed, and very largely written,
by Barker, was published at Newcastle upon Tyne until the
summer of 1845, when he moved to Wortley.’ Announcing
the move, he said that he had been too cramped at Newcastle,
and had little hope of finding more convenient premises. At
Wortley he had found a place with plenty of room, water for
a steam press, convenient for business and at a low rent, and
more central for ‘‘the populous districts of the West Riding
of Yorkshire and of Lancashire.’’.He was weary of living in
town and wanted country quiet. Furthermore he would be
near his brothers and could train them to carry on ‘‘printing
plans and operations’’ in case of his own death; he would be
near his aged father and mother, and “the free, fresh air of
the open fields’’ of Wortley would be better for his wife’s
health. Barker was to stay at Wortley until 1851; and The
Chnstian was published there for the rest of its existence.
The Chnstian began to reflect Barker’s increasing interest
in political radicalism towards the end of 1846, but it was
chiefly a religious paper, taking an interest in such public
questions as Temperance, Peace, and the abolition of Negro
slavery, all of them issues in which American speakers and
writers were prominently and actively engaged.* Barker’s
erowing sympathy with these men and their country is re-
flected in the columns of his paper. He praised William Ellery
Channing in No. 6, and announced in the same issue that he
was planning to publish his works in six volumes, and in No.
44 featured a long and enthusiastic review by himself of A
Discourse on Matters pertaining to Religion, by Theodore
Parker, another American Unitarian. When he advertised the
opening of the Steam Press at Wortley on 6 July 1846° he
announced his hope that Elihu Burritt, the abolitionist, pacifist
and proponent of Universal Penny Postage, would be present,
and would speak. He reprinted pieces by Longfellow*® and
J. R. Lowell,** was host to the abolitionist, Wiliam Lloyd
Garrison in 1846,” reported several meetings addressed in

Tota, VW, No. 33 [1845].

8 For a general discussion of Anglo-American unity in these fields, see F. Thistle-
thwaite, The Anglo-American Connection in the Early Nineteenth Century
(Philadelphia, t950), ch. 3 and 4.

9 Christian, II, No. 47 [1846].

10 Tbid., III, No. 51 [1846].

ET Ord) LE, ING. 52) | 13846).
12 Tbed ., V1, No. 60 [3846].

a4 MISCELLANY

England by Frederick Douglass, the escaped slave,** and was
the recipient of a letter from Douglass in these terms: “‘Joseph,
I want you — and the great cause of reform wants you, —
in America. Your contemplated visit must not be delayed...’’**
He also heard Henry Carey Wright, the apostle of non-
resistance,’ and published*® a ‘‘Correspondence between J.
Barker and the Body of Christians of America’’ showing the
strong likeness in outlook of the American religious group
known as Christians and his own Christian Brethren, as well
as a letter on behalf of the students of Meadville Theological
School, Meadville, Pa., from R. Hassall,’? a former New
Connexion missionary to Canada, asking Barker to send them
The Christian. He published a letter to John Shearman,*® of
Honey Wall, Stoke-on-Trent, a preacher among the Christian
Brethren, from J. W. Walker, of Leesville, Ohio, an American
citizen born in Liverpool, attacking the Mexican War as an
attempt to impose slavery. On 6 September 1847 Walker
wrote directly to Barker, saying that he had read thirty
numbers of The Christian and hoped its editor would soon
visit America.*? Walker was then on a lecturing tour of
Northern Ohio with Garrison and Douglass. In an undated
answer to Walker, Barker said that he wanted to come to
America to do propagandist work for ‘‘reforming principles’’
on the platform and in the press, but that he was tied to Eng-
land by business: “‘. . . my faith in the success and triumph
of reforming principles in America, is as great as my faith in
their success and triumph here. Reforming principles have
succeeded and triumphed in America already. They are
succeeding and triumphing now.’’”°

In No. 84 of The Christian (x January 1848), Barker made his
first mention, apart from the reminiscence noted above, of the
general subject of emigration to America, the theme that was
to become dominant with him for the next three years. Discuss-
ing poverty and unemployment (whether in the West Riding
or the country as a whole is not clear), he wrote ‘‘Great

13 [bid., ITI, No. 60 [1846], III, Nos. 61 (January 1847), 62 (February 1847),
70 (i June 1847).

14 [bid., IV, No. 83 (1 December 1847). Douglass to Barker, 16 October ‘1847.

15 Jbid., III, No. 62 (February 1847).

16 Jbid., III, No. 65 (14 March 1847).

17 Tbid., III, No. 69 (14 May 1847).

18 fbid., 1V, No. 7o (14 October 1847).

19 Jbid., IV, No. 82 (1 December 1847).

20 [bid., IV, No. 83 (14 December 1847).

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE”’ 335

numbers are going off to America . . . They waited, hoping for
improvement at home, till they could wait and hope no longer,
and now, with sorrowful hearts, they are crossing the wide
Atlantic, in hopes of finding a home and a livelihood on the
continent of America.’’ Here the mood is sober; the messianic
note, which will become so familiar, is not yet struck. In one
of the last issues of The Christian,’ Barker again stated his
own desire to go to America. He had reported the gift by the
philanthropist Gerrit Smith of forty-acre plots of land in New
York state to three thousand Negroes, and continued ‘‘I wish
he (Smith) would set apart a portion of his remaining lands
for the use of honest, industrious, and sober emigrants from
Great Britain and Ireland. I wish he would so arrange matters
that the poor creatures who are obliged to emigrate to America
from this part of the world, might be assured of a few weeks
or a few months labour on their arrival, that they might thus
be enabled to support themselves and their families for a little
while, till they had time to look around them, and obtain
employment elsewhere, and find out suitable places to settle
in. . . One reason why I myself desire to go to America is,
that I may, if possible, induce parties there to make the pro-
vision I have just spoken of for emigrants from this part of
the world, or by some means making such provision for them
myself.’’ He was to revert to this theme later.

The last issue of The Christian was a double number, dated
“April rst and 14th, 1848.’’ But Barker was not silent. He
had started, in January 1848, the Reformer’s Companion to
the Almanacs, which was published in ten numbers, the last
coming out in October 1848. The Almanac referred to in the
title was his Reformer’s Almanack for 1848, which foretold,
among other things, the French Revolution of that year.
Towards the end of The Christian’s life, its pages made clear
that Barker was turning to political Radicalism. Speaking at
Birstall on the occasion of the National Fast, 24 March 1847,
he attacked the hypocrisy of the Government and the Church
of England and claimed that the “‘scarcity in England, and
the famine in Ireland’’ were not judgments of God, but the
results of aristocratic tyranny and land monopoly.” He spoke
to ‘‘several thousands’’ at Berry Brow on 13 June on “‘the
causes of the Distress at present prevailing in Great Britain

21 Ibid., IV, No. 88 (1 March 1848).
22 Tbid., III, No. 70 (x June 1847).

336 MISCELLANY

and Ireland,’’ and two days later at Wortley, on behalf of
Joseph Sturge, the Quaker Radical and Complete Suffrage
leader, to the ‘“‘Liberal Electors and Non-Electors.’’** Sturge
was standing as Radical candidate for Leeds in the General
Election, supported by such Liberals as Edward Baines the
elder, and Peter Fairbairn.** The right wing Liberals, how-
ever, opposed him, and he was defeated by William Beckett,
the Conservative, and James Garth Marshall, the candidate
of the Liberal Right. He also spoke in 1847 on political sub-
jects at Newcastle upon Tyne, Bury (Lancs.), Failsworth
and Sunderland.*? He became a popular speaker with Chartist
audiences in 1848, and was heard at various places in the
industrial North,*® speaking at the great West Riding Chartist
demonstration at Skircoat Moor, Halifax, on Good Friday,
with Ernest Jones, although, unlike Jones, he avowed himself
‘‘a moral-force Chartist.’’*”

In the first number of the Reformer’s Companion to the
Almanacs Barker reprinted some of the rules of the Shakers,
the American religious sect whose celibate communities had
become objects of interest to many English social reformers.
Included among the rules were these: ‘‘Contrary to order to
inquire into any bargain that the deacons have made. Contrary
to order to have right and left shoes. Contrary to order to go
out among the world, or among families, without permission
of the elders ... ..’ Barker*s comment-was: “I had rathersdie
of hunger in a ditch, than belong to such a community. Let
me have FREEDOM; freedom first, and bread afterwards;
and if I cannot have bread without becoming a slave, without
renouncing my manhood, let me die.”’

The second issue of the Companion, published in February
1848, contained its editor’s first major pronouncement on the
emigration question. He had formerly, he wrote, been opposed
to emigration but ““It seems to me that working people genera-
ally may emigrate to the United States of America to great
advantage.’’ They should not wait until forced by poverty,
for then it would be too late to find the means. “‘Of late there-
fore, I have encouraged emigration rather than otherwise.’’

23 [bid., III, No. 72 (1 July 1847).

24 J. Mayhall, Annals of Yorkshire, I (Leeds, 1861), 546.

25 Christian, IV, Nos. 75 (14 August 1847), 84 (1 January 1848), and 85 (14
January 1848).

26 Northern Star, 1848, passim.

27 Ibid., 29 April 1848.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 224

Unemployment was great and wages low in England and
Ireland. Things would eventually improve, but people cannot
wait, and should therefore go. One of Barker’s brothers
(John), had gone to Ohio some years earlier, and in spite of
illness was doing well as a farmer; and another brother,
Samuel, had gone there a few months before. Barker continued
by Seivine van extract trom a letter from Samuel.° The
““emigrant letter’? was one of the most powerful forces in influ-
encing people in the home countries of Europe to leave for
America, and the first English collection was published as
early as 1833 by the Petworth (Sussex) Emigration Society.*®
Barker was to use them extensively during his editorship of
The People, and they cast considerable light on the geograph-
ical location of his readership in England, and of the places
they chose in America, and on their motives for leaving the
old, as well as the fortunes they met in the new country.
Samuel wrote that he knew of several places where weavers
and spinners were wanted. He had been sent for to weave
at Pleasant Valley, where John Dod and Richard Thompson
(of Bramley) were weaving. He goes on: ‘“‘Dod has bought
45 acres of land, and a man farms it for half the crop, and
it leaves him about roo dollars a year. About half of it is
wood. Thompson, when he came, was very poor. He had to
sell his wife’s ring and his clothes at New York to get to
Ackron [i.é. Akron, Ohio]; and the day he got to Ackron
he had eat [sic] nothing from morn till night, and walked
all day. He could only pay for his wife and child on the boat,
and he had nothing for them to eat.°’ It is about 16 months
since. Now he has a good furnished house, I cow, I pig, wood
and other things to serve all winter, I gun worth 20 dollars,
lots of cloth, middling of money, and intends going out to
Wisconsin in spring to buy some land, then come back and
earn money to stock and farm it.’’ Of American apples Samuel
writes ““. . . They are better than any that grow in England;
you might make pies of them without sugar.’’ The note of
wonder and hyperbole is a characteristic emigrant reaction.
Barker followed the extract from his brother’s letter by an

28 Undated, and no place of origin, but probably from somewhere in Ohio.

29 W. S. Shepperson, British Emigration to North America: Projects and
Opinions in the Early Victorian Period (Oxford, 1957), Io.

30 At this period in the U.S.A. much travelling was done by inland waterways.
Thompson probably travelled up the Hudson to Albany, and then west by the
Erie Canal to Lake Erie.

338 MISCELLANY

extract from James Silk Buckingham’s Account of his Travels
in America. American travel diaries were published in large
numbers in the early Victorian period, and the quotation from
this one is chiefly of interest in that Barker chose Bucking-
ham’s account of Edward C. Delavan, a leading figure in the
American temperance movement, together with his descrip-
tion of the prosperity of the farming district around Ballston
Center, where Delavan lived.

Barker’s article on America in the Companion for February
1848 had urged emigration to the U.S.A. on economic grounds
alone, but in ‘“‘Advice to Emigrants,’’**? he opened up his
second line of attack, giving what might be called the Chartist
or democratic grounds for emigrating there.** ‘‘If you are
determined to leave your own country, consider first to what
country you will go. In my judgment the United States is
best.’’ He gave as his reasons the common language, likeness
of manners, regular employment, good wages, abundance of
land, low taxation, friendly and generous neighbours, and
“‘a great amount of civil, political and religious liberty.’’ This
was followed by detailed and sensible practical advice (with
which he was always generous), which may be summarised
as follows: Prepare for trials; go with your spouse; travel
on an American boat; take for your voyage a “‘good supply
of oatmeal, flour, and biscuits’’; ‘‘Wash yourselves thoroughly
from head to foot before you start;’’ ‘““Take a little opening
medicine with you... .’’; start fresh and not tired, the-better
to resist illness; avoid overcrowded ships if you can; on an
overcrowded ship ‘‘be on deck as much as possible’’; consult
your wife’s convenience and sense of delicacy as much as
possible; write to a friend in America to seek work and go
to him without lingering in New York or Boston; take the
first job you can do, if you are sure of getting wages for it;
it is no disgrace to beg; be teetotal, before you start, on your
way, and when you land; do not settle in any “‘low or marshy
situations’’; [His brother John had suffered from ague from
doing this.] ‘‘Even if you have money and intend to buy
land, seek employment first . . . and take all your truly good

31 Buckingham himself, besides being Liberal M.P. for Sheffield, and a pioneer
of town planning, was, like Barker, an active propagandist in the temperance
cause, and a believer in phrenology.

32 Reformer’s Companion to the Almanacs, No. 6 (May 1848).

33 He had written in Companion, No. 3 (March 1848) ‘‘For myself, I am, with
respect to my principles generally, a Chartist.”’

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE”’ 339
books with you;’’** sell your furniture; ‘‘Take a tolerable share
of clothing if you can, but not very much .. .’’; take your
bed and bedding, if they be good; change your linen fre-
quently; ask God’s blessing on your journey; ‘‘Leave your
native land with a clear conscience ...~’: ““Leave a curse
behind, when you leave your native land, on all its oppressors
and cruelties; on its villainous Church Establishments; on
its tyrannical Government; on its hypocritical Priesthood;
on its plundering Aristocracy; its extravagant Court; on its
prison-like Poor-houses; on its wicked Laws; on its unjust
system of taxation; on its middle-class selfishness; on its
Parliamentary corruptions; and pray God, with all your heart,
that the plundering Tyrants, the inhuman Aristocrats, and
the vile Priests, whose endless and inexcusable villainies have
rendered it impossible for you to obtain, by honest industry,
a comfortable subsistence in your native land, may soon be
stripped of their power, and of their ill-gotten wealth, and
reduced to such a position, that they shall be obliged to work
at some honest business for their bread, or suffer the horrors
of starvation.’’ In spite of the violence of his language,
Barker’s criticism of English institutions, it will be noted, is
the stock in trade of the middle-class Radical, adding only
the references to the new Poor Law and middle-class selfish-
ness. ‘‘Lastly, connive at no villainy in your new country.*°
Guard against American prejudices. Join no one in treating
the coloured population of America with disrespect. Oppose
the prejudice against colour that prevails there. Take sides
with the abolitionists. Ever seek after truth wherever you
may be, and when you have found it, advocate it .. .”’

The Companion, No. g (July 1848) contained another letter,
dated 28 May, from Samuel Barker, who was now located a
mile from ‘‘Cuyhanga’’ (i.e. Cuyahoga Falls, near Akron,
Ohio). He had bought a farm, but did not work full time at
it, and had, indeed, agreed to take a job wool-sorting, and
intended going into partnership with a friend, renting a

34 R. D. Altick, The English Common Reader: a Social History of the Mass
Reading Public, 1800-1900 (Chicago, 1957), 255-7, cites Barker as a type of the
“self-made reader’’.

35 In spite of his fanatical admiration for the American Republic at this stage
of his career, Barker was always ready to make public criticisms of her failings
and ‘‘villainies’’, and had repeated his attack on the Mexican War in Companion,
No. 3 (March 1848), ‘‘This is dreadful work. What a pity that the United States
of America cannot learn a lesson from the old mad Governments of Europe.’’
And he was at this period a consistent opponent of slavery and colour prejudice.

F

340 MISCELLANY

factory, presumably a woollen mill of some kind, next summer.
He mentions John Broughton, from near Pudsey, now living
near Buffalo, N.Y., and John Harrison, of Armley, now a
tailor at Cuyahoga Falls. Lawson of Pudsey had been living
about thirty miles from Philadelphia, but “‘I am afraid he
has gone back.’’ Many emigrants did return to their home-
land, and others who stayed in America were unhappy and
unsatisfied. Barker had to deal with this problem as editor
of The People.

The Reformer’s Compamon to the Almanacs ceased publica-
tion in October 1848°°; but by this time Joseph Barker had
had a new periodical in the field for some months. In May 1848
he had issued the first number of The People; their Rights
and Liberties, their Duties and their Interests, which he edited,
printed, published, and in great part wrote, at Wortley, until
1851. After Volaa, No. 2 (17 ume 41646) seach aesie sac
numbered, but not dated until Vol. 3, No. 157, the last number
issued by Barker. This number probably appeared about
March 1851, as No. 149 contained a letter from G. Brown of
Barnard Castle, dated 13 January 1851, and the first number
issued after Barker had given the paper up was dated 15
March 1851. Accordingly, The People must have appeared
approximately weekly. The new paper’s attitude was forth-
rightly stated in its first number. ‘‘One thing we may say,
the work will be thoroughly democratic. It will wage unspar-
ing war with everything that stands in the way of the people’s
rights, the people’s liberties, the people’s improvement, and
the people’s prosperity.’’ Barker maintained the Radical, and
indeed Republican, outlook of the paper throughout his editor-
ship.

The People, No. 7, contained the first of many emigrant
letters with which its editor was to fill it. The writer was Samuel
Garth, a former friend of Barker’s in Halifax,*’ now a small
farmer at Oxford, Ohio, who spoke of the good living he
made, and urged Barker to come to America. Besides the
emigrant letters, Barker published news, advice, and propa-

36 In a letter to John Gibson (People, II, No. 91) Barker stated that he gave
up the Companion when its circulation fell below 5,000.

37 Halifax had been the scene of an earlier campaign for emigration to America.
The Radical Halifax Free Pvess (which had no connection with the Urquhartite
Free Press) had in 1843 extensively publicised the aims of the British Emigrants’
Mutual Aid Society, whose Secretary was Elijah Crabtree, a Halifax Chartist and
“Ten Hours’? advocate, and whose best known member was the Chartist, Law-
rence Pitkethly, of Huddersfield.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 341

ganda about America in his answers to correspondents. The
addresses of the correspondents were often given, and the
answers frequently reveal their occupations, as Barker often
reports on the prospects in America for shoemakers, iron-
workers, woolcombers and so forth. An account of the places
of origin of The People’s correspondents or of individuals re-
ferred to by correspondents, together with those of men whom
Barker met on his visit to the States in 1849, and who were
readers of The People, and had known or heard him in
England, or shared his views, is of considerable interest.
Correspondents on subjects other than America and emigration
have been ignored, as have correspondents on the Potters’
Emigration Society, and the Bradford Co-operative Emigra-
tion Society, which will be considered later.

Seventy places are mentioned, including general descriptions,
such as ““The Potteries.’’ Towns occurring more than once
(except where the same individual correspondent appears more
than once) are Leeds (7), Manchester (5), Pudsey (4), Halifax
(3), Liverpool (3), Worksop (3), Birmingham (2), Bolton (2),
Bradford (2), Burslem (2), Hawarden (2), Rotherham (2),
Stalybridge (2), Stockport (2).

A grouping by areas significantly underlines the correspon-
dence with the areas of strength of the Christian Brethren:
West Riding of Yorkshire (33), Lancashire, with the textile
districts of North-East Cheshire and North-West Derbyshire
(21), Northumberland and County Durham (14), Southern
England, including London and East Anglia (7), North Mid-
lands (half accounted for by Worksop) (6), Staffordshire
Potteries (5), West Midlands (4), Wales and Chester (4), Ire-
land (3), Scotland (2).

It is possible to arrive at certain figures for the other side
of the Atlantic. Forty locations (town or state) are given for
fifty-two emigrants, either by the emigrants themselves in
letters to The People, or by others reporting that they had
reached their destinations in America. People whom Barker
met on his 1849 visit have not been included unless they appear
elsewhere in the columns of The People. The distribution by
states is as follows:

Ohio ro (7 places); [linois 8; Wisconsin 8; Massachusetts
7 (5 places); New York 7 (4 places); Pennsylvania 4 (2 places);
Virginia 3 (2 places); New Jersey 2; Delaware 1; lowa I.

Places mentioned more than once are New York (4), Phila-

342 MISCELLANY

delphia (3), Albany, N.Y. (2), Boston (2), Lowell, Mass. (2),
and the neighbourhood of Wheeling, Va. (2). Of the fifty-two
emigrants, twenty-seven settled in what were then Western
States (Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa). The others were
located on what may be loosely called the Eastern Seaboard,
and were not to be found south of Virginia or Delaware. The
most Westerly place represented is Fairfield, Iowa. One
correspondent wrote from Canada.

The men who wrote to The People were almost all working-
class, their occupations including those of clogger, tailor,
shoemaker, potter, coachbuilder, ironworker, woolcomber,
carpenter, canvas weaver, coalminer, painter, blacksmith,
basket-maker, porter, storekeeper, gas-fitter, boat-builder,
stone mason, joiner, engine driver, platelayer, printer, tin-
plater, farm servant, cabinet maker, plasterer, mule woollen
spinner, rope maker, temperance hotel barman: a preponder-
ance of the skilled sections of the working-class, with a few
middle-class representatives, such as school-teacher, farmer,
surveyor, and minister of religion.

The backgrounds of Barker’s correspondents are sometimes
revealed by an illuminating sentence. An unidentified writer
says “‘I omitted to mention a large iceberg we saw one morn-
ing. It seemed as large out of the water as any cotton mill I
ever saw.’’** Benjamin Brunt, of Sterling, Mass., formerly
of the Potteries, who had written home to his ‘‘Dear Wife
and Children,’’ ‘‘As regards me coming home, I have sworn
my life against England. I bless God that I was born so
haughty, that is what Mr Challinor, of Tunstall, discharged
me for,’’*®® wrote to his wife later, sending for her and asking
her to bring, together with other potter’s tools and a teapot,
the ‘‘largest camelhair pencil you can get.’’ He probably
painted designs on to pottery as well as making it.*° John M.
of Bolton, who wanted to go to Ohio, describes his family*?:
‘““My father, 48 years of age, is at present spinning, but could
turn to handloom weaving; mother, 46 years of age; myself,
22, maker-up of cotton yarn; Thomas, 20, boot and shoe-
maker, would be obliged to work at his own trade, but is a
good workman. The rest willing to labour at anything. James,
17, factory hand; Samuel, 11 years of age, attends school;

38° People; 1, No. 12.

39 Tbid., I, No. 42. Letter of 21 January 1849.
40 Ibid., I, No. 45. Letter of 2 March 1849.
4\Toid., UU, No: 87.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE”’ 343

Elizabeth 8 years of age. Father, a total abstainer near 13
years; myself and the rest hardly ever tasted intoxicating
drinks. We are light made, but industrious, and much
esteemed by our neighbours.’’

‘‘For our religious and political opinions we subjoin the

following lines of one of our Lancashire poets, J. Critchley
Prince 7" :

‘Did God set his fountains of light in the skies,
That man should look up with tears in his eyes?
Did God make the earth so abundant and fair
That man should le down with a groan of despair?
Did God scatter freedom o’er mountain and wave,
That man should exist as a tyrant and slave?
Away with so hopeless, so joyless a creed,

The soul that believes it is darkened indeed,

My religion is love — ’tis the noblest and purest,
My temple the universe widest and surest;

I worship my God in his works which are fair,
And the joy of my heart is perpetual prayer.’’

These working-men held strong views on their condition
and prospects in this country and in the United States, and
expressed them forcefully. Almost all of the emigrant letters
show satisfaction with their greatly improved material condi-
tions. Robert Elson and John Clark, who had gone from
Cuxhoe Colliery, County Durham, to Louisville, Ohio, write
to James Culverson, ‘‘We have a club dinner here every
meal.’’** Benjamin Ross of Amesbury and Salisbury Mills,
Mass., and formerly of Pudsey, writes, that never before has
he had such a prospect of prosperity. He has ‘‘a good house,
with 7 rooms, 3 of them papered.’’** Joseph Fox, a shoe-
maker and friend of Barker and a member of the Christian
Brethren, formerly of King Cross, Halifax, author of The
Methodist Travelling Preacher and the Shoemaker, writes
from Lowell, the famous Massachusetts cotton town, that he
got work at the first place he went to, and could do better than

42 John Critchley Prince (1808-66), a reed-maker and heald knitter, and editor
(1845-51) of the Ancient Shepherds’ Quarterly Magazine, Ashton-under-Lyne.
Some of his poems had been published in The Christian, II, Nos. 40, 42, 43, 44,
45, ILI, Nos. 55, 66. They were usually of an uplifting character, and in favour
of temperance and “‘open air religion’’.

43 People, II, No. 53. Undated letter. By ‘‘club dinner’’ the writer means the
annual dinner of a sick club or friendly society.

44 Ibid., II, No. 85. Letter of 28 October 1849.

344 MISCELLANY

an English shoemaker by scarcely ever working later than
seven p.m. and on Saturdays five p.m. “‘I can earn a dollar
a day very easy.’’*’ Fox, incidentally, was introduced to
“near a score’ of people from Halifax and Sowerby Bridge on
his first night in Lowell. Barker characteristically, in com-
menting on this letter, adverts on the dangers of living too
well in America, and thinks that the Fox family is indulging
too much in flesh food and sweetmeats.*° Joseph Lister, who
only left England on 16 March 1840, is able a year later to
send thirty pounds to pay the passages of his wife and five
children.*’ He had been working as an engine-tender at
Elizabeth, Ill., for the equivalent of two pounds a week, and
board.

This emphasis on economic benefits is, perhaps, only what
one expects. More striking is the feeling of bitter alienation
from English society and the correspondingly vehement praise
of American institutions expressed by many of The People’s
correspondents in America. Joseph Shaw of Akron, Ohio,
writes that he has visited Barker’s brother Samuel** and heard
of Joseph’s arrest, trial and liberation under bail.*® “‘I was
sorry indeed. But the prayer of my heart was, that God
would hasten the downfall of an aristocratic Government.’’
Joseph Smith writes from Bloomingdale, Du Page County,
Ill., ‘‘Our members of Congress are not so aristocratic as
your members of Parliament . . . Tell your democratic friends,
there is a good chance for them all here.’’’? Thomas Rogers,
a coalminer of West West (sic), near Pottsville, Pa., tells his
friend James Whitehead, engineer, of Ridghill Lanes, Staly-
bridge,°* that he and his comrades have just fought a success-
ful strike for more pay, and are forming ‘‘one grand union,

45 [bid., 1, No. 36. Letter of 7 December 1848; Christian, AV, No. Sy Mia
November 1847).

46 Barker was at this time a teetotaller, vegetarian, and anti-smoker.

47 Peoplz, II, No. 103. George Woodhead to Barker, Shelf, 19 April 1850.

48 Tbid., I, No. 38. Letter of 26 November 1848.

49 Barker was arrested at Bolton, Lancs., on 11 September 1848, for conspiracy
and attending unlawful assemblies, and was imprisoned at Liverpool. Other
defendants arrested at the same time agreed to enter into their own recognizances
to keep the peace for a year, and were discharged. Barker, however, demanded
a trial. The Attorney General entered a Nolle Prosequi, and the case was aban-
doned on 12 December 1848. (Barker, A Full Account of the Arvest, Imprisonment,
and Liberation on Bail of Joseph Barker... (Wortley, 1849); and The Triumph
of Right over Might... (Wortley, 1849).)

50 People, II, No. 56. Letter of 11 May 1845. Smith went to America in 1844,
and Barker printed in this issue of The People extracts from eleven of his letters
to his parents, written between 1844 and 1848.

51 [bid., II, No. 67. Letter of 20 May 1849.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 345

and are getting our articles and resolutions framed.’’ The
union is to be called the ‘‘Association of the Miners and
Labourers of Skulkill (sic) County.’’ ““There is a better chance
to get through a turn-out here than in England, because the
people are not so much afraid of their masters as they are in
England.’’ William Chapman, of Hulme, Manchester, clearly
not a working man, writes, that he is thinking of going to
Wisconsin or Illinois, with enough capital to stock several
farms. ‘‘I have sufficient means to end my days in this country,
but being alike sick of dishonest legislation and gross immoral-
ity, I am wishful that myself and family should enjoy the
advantages of a free republic.’’’” Matthew Shaw writes from
Wisconsin, ‘‘When I read of the oppression that is exercised
in England under absolute aristocracy, and a worldly, selfish
and devilish priesthood, and a set of greasy officers, and then
turn my eyes to this happy country, I feel overwhelmed with
joy and thankfulness that I was ever led to such a land of
freedom.’’’* Walter Minchin, clerk and barman in a temper-
ance hotel, Grand Marsh House, Wis., writing to a friend
to warn him against the Potters’ Emigration Society, speaks
of his relief at having escaped the rule of ‘‘those thieves and
‘murderers the British Aristocrats.’’°* Joseph Leese (or Lees),
formerly of Ashton-under-Lyne, who sends compliments to his
‘‘Huddersfield democratic friends,’’®’ even looks forward to
an invasion of England,°’® from America, ‘‘Poor England!
For thee I have no hope. Oh that thy bondsmen would leave
thee, to gather strength and remit their energies under the free
institutions of Washington, with the firm resolve to return in
marshalled phalanx to quash for ever the Norman monsters
and their host, who for eight hundred years revelled in the
blood and marrow of their fathers.’’’’ An anecdote of W.
Cooke Taylor in 1842, affords a striking parallel to this last
example. ‘“‘I have had an opportunity of conversing with some
who were on their road to emigrate, and I found them rancor-

2 Ibid., II, No. 62. Letter of 13 June 1849.
3 Ibid., II, No. 98. Letter of 16 December 1849.
54 Tbid., III, No. 126. Minchin to Henry Allen, 20 July 1850.

59 [bid., II, No. 67.

56 Jbid., III, No. 130. Lees(e) to Richard Ramsden, undated. Ramsden’s
emigrants’ boarding-house in Liverpool had been recommended by Lees in No.
67 and Barker’s recommendation of it advertised in No. 58.

57 The theory of ‘‘the Norman Yoke’’, which still lingered among English
Chartists and Radicals, is discussed by Christopher Hill in his essay of the same
title in John Saville, ed., Democracy and the Labour Movement: Essays in honour
of Dona Tory (London, 1955), 11-66.

346 MISCELLANY

ously bitter against those whom they believed to have pro-
duced the necessity for their expatriation. One of them quoted,
from some history of the American war, a remark to the effect
that during the earlier stages of that conflict the American
riflemen invariably aimed at bringing down the British officers
and sparing the men, attributing the war not to the English
people but to the aristocracy, he added that he believed the
anecdote to be true, and that he yet hoped to have an opportun-
ity of acting in a similar manner.’’’® The evidence of these
correspondents strengthens, I believe, the view that for a few
emigrants to the U.S.A. the chief motive was political, and
that for a considerable proportion it played some part. The
pseudonyms of Barker’s correspondents on America included,
“Proletarian,’’” “A Iked Republican,’’ and: “’Chamen” >it
probably also supports the traditional view that emigration
contributed to the slow death of Chartism after 1848.°° A letter
from a strongly Barkerite reader in England is reproduced in
the Appendix.

Not everyone who went to America found happiness there.
For all his enthusiasm, Barker realised this, and discussed it
in the columns of The People. He even estimated that a quarter
or a fifth of those who went to America would return, because
of strong attachments to the old country and to their friends.°’
J. Netherwood, who had left for America in the autumn of
1848 wrote to Joseph’s brother Benjamin, that there was un-
employment in New York and the manufacturing districts,
and that Barker was acting unwisely in publishing letters in
favour of emigration.°* Netherwood had met one man who
had been encouraged to come to America by Barker’s publica-
tions and had been disappointed. (He gave no further details. )

58 William Cooke Taylor, Notes of a Tour in the Manufacturing Districts of
Lancashire; in a Series of Letters to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin (London,
1842), 173.

59 People, II, No. 88; III, Nos. 117, 123. This must be one of the first appear-
ances in English of the word “‘proletarian’’ used in the sense of ‘“‘propertyless
wage-earner’. The N.E.D. gives 1851 as the year of its first appearance. Helen
McFarlane used it frequently, both as a noun and an adjective, in her translation
of the Communist Manifesto in The Red Republican, 1, 21-3 (9-23 November
1850), but No. 88 of The People must have appeared early in that year. Prof.
Bestor mentions no earlier date than 1851 in his ‘““The Evolution of the Socialist
Vocabulary’’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 9 (1948), 259-302. (References to
The Red Republican kindly supplied by the Goldsmiths’ Librarian, University
of London.)

60 G. D. H. Cole and R. Postgate, The Common People, 1746-1946 (London,
1946), 326.

61 People, II, No. 90.

62 1b1d., 1, No. 38:

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 2}

Only those with £200 capital should come. ‘‘If they be willing
to go West and buy land, they can get a home and a living
that no man can deprive them of.’’ Barker replied that Nether-
wood himself had at once got a job in New York, and was
still in it, that he gave neither proof nor opinion that anything
in the letters published by Barker was untrue, and that a
friend of his who knew Netherwood was of the opinion that
he was “‘a nice man, but inclined to take a gloomy view of
things.’’ In another part of the same issue Barker warned
emigrants ‘‘not to remain in Boston or New York a single
moment longer than they can help, but to hasten at once over
the country towards the Western States. Ohio is the first state
at which they ought to think of stopping.’’ He repeated this
warning in No. 54, in reply to a correspondent (unnamed) who
had gone from the Skipton district to Philadelphia and claimed
that there was no work in America.

Another correspondent, William Beaumont, of South And-
over, Mass., and originally from the Huddersfield district,
wrote to Joseph Greenwood, of Gawthorpe, near Hudders-
field, giving an unfavourable picture of life in a factory town.°*°
Working men work from daylight to 7.30 in winter, and from
sunrise to 7 in summer. ‘“‘It is all factory and bed, so that no
room is left for improvement.’’ Many send home lying accounts
of their prosperity. Here Barker points out that no names or
details are given. Finally, Beaumont advises his friend to
come to America, where his knowledge of weaving and design-
ing would help him, but to come alone, leaving his family.
For “‘in this country five or six starve a deal sooner than
one.” Peter Buesey, of Lowell, Mass., writing to “Friend
Sutcliff’’°* that he liked the country and would spend the rest
of his days in it, added this warning, ““The manufacturing
towns in this country, will in a few years be equally as bad
as those in yours, in consequence of the over population of
those towns, and the consequent competition for labour.’’
Buesey also claimed that those who had done well sent
exaggeratedly favourable reports to their friends, who were
often disappointed when they arrived. But a man with a family
and one to two hundred pounds capital might settle on the
land and become independent. Nor was Barker unwilling to
print his own criticisms of American faults. He did this most

63 [bid., I, No. 48. Letter of 4 February 1849.
64 Tbid., II, No. 65. Letter of 14 July 1849.

348 MISCELLANY

trenchantly in one of the last issues of The People,°*’ not long
before his own emigration. ‘‘We are neither blind nor indiffer-
ent to their prejudice against colour; to their worship of
gold; to their violent language; to their unseemly boasting;
to their occasional excesses.’’

Barker’s own view was that, although emigrants might do
well in the urban society of the Eastern seaboard, happiness
and prosperity were more surely to be found in the agrarian
West. He also believed that virtue and independence were
more likely to stem from country life.°®° He had particularly
in mind Ohio, L[llinois, Wisconsin,®’ Indiana, and Jowa.**
When he heard that wages were being reduced at the “‘Lowell
Factory’’ his comment was, “‘If this be the case, it is time that
ereater numbers turned away from the factory system, and
settled themselves on the land.’’®? We have already noted
that in one of his earliest articles on emigration,’® he had
urged his readers to take the first job they could do, and in
a letter’* to a family whose members had ‘‘all been brought
up in the cotton manufacturing line,’’ he tried to dissuade them
from following their old occupations in America because of
the low wages in the cotton mills, urging them to try anything
else. He also urged his readers to be temperate,’* and pre-
pared for hardships‘* in America.

The United States was not the only country to which one
could emigrate, and Joseph Barker attacked the government’s
plans for ‘‘transporting the poor to some distant country,’’
in The People, at an early stage.** “‘If they wish to emigrate,
let them form some plan among themselves, and help each
other to a land of freedom.’’ In a later attack’? he warned his

Go Void. Jil, INO. 142;

66 Jbid., II, No. 77. Barker to Benjamin Barker, sr., 1 September 1849 (begun
in No. 74).

67 In his article ‘‘Emigration societies, — my own plan’’, Barker gives another
view of Wisconsin ‘‘They [intending emigrants] would especially act foolishly
to purchase lands in Wisconsin, the coldest of the United States.’’ People, II,
No. 86.

8S 7btd.,, 1, Nos. 16; 20,38; Tl). No. 62,

69 Jbid., II, No. ~71, “‘J. Barker’s voyage to America’’.

70 Reformer’s Companion to the Almanacs, No. 6 (May 1848).

71 People, II, No. 84.

72 “T have always said, that none but teetotallers have any right to go to the
United States’, People, II, No. too. Barker had been co-editor of The Star of
Temperance, and first chairman of the British Association for the Promotion
of Temperance, the first national society based on teetotal principles, founded in
Manchester in 1835, having its greatest strength in the North, and later known
as the British Temperance League.

73 People, II, No. 75.

14 Toid., L, NO. 3.

TI TOI. 1, NO. 15:

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 349

readers not to allow themselves to be shipped off to the Colonies
unless they could not afford the voyage to America and were
certain that they would do well in the Colony they chose.
‘‘T would almost as soon lie down and die, as emigrate to a
colony under the government of the English, until the Govern-
ment of the English is wrested from the hands of the thievish
and murderous Aristocracy, and placed in the hands of men
who have a sense of justice, and a feeling of humanity in
their souls.’’ In the next number of The People, Barker
attacked the government’s policy of encouraging emigration
to Australia, mentioning in particular the long voyage (four
to six months), the cost of land, the loneliness of life in the
wilderness, dear provisions and constant uncertainty and fear
for the future, high taxes (twenty to thirty shillings a head
per annum), and aristocratic tyranny, and also took the
opportunity to say that the Leeds Times’ articles on emigration
were a disgrace to it. The Leeds Times had begun a weekly
series of articles on emigration on 26 August 1848. The first
six dealt with Australia. He attacked Douglas Jerrold’s
Weekly Newspaper for its advocacy of Australia.’° Barker
was also critical of Canada. When he printed a letter from
Thomas Parks, Markhan (sic), 5th Concession, Canada,’’
which said that it was far better to live there than in England,
with all the difficulties (and also asking about the Christian
Brethren, and ‘‘my old friend Joseph Barker’’), his comment
was, ‘““The curse of an aristocratic and royal tyranny is on
it. Yet even in Canada people do better than here.’’ William
and Mary White, formerly of Worksop, who had formerly
been in Canada, wrote from Genesee, Livingstone County,
N.Y.,”° of conditions there. ““As for Canada, they are as bad
there, if not worse than in England. There has been several
riots in Canada, and it is thought that if the Queen does not
mend some of their laws, she will lose the Canadas.’’ Barker’s
own belief was that Canada would probably be added to the
United States or become independent.”

After the decision to go to America the emigrant had to face
the voyage across the Atlantic, long and tedious (Barker’s
ship took seven and a half weeks from Liverpool to New

2 Tbhid. \, Neo. 26:

77 Tbid., I, No. 40. Letter of 22 November 1848.

78 [bid., Il, No. 98. Letter of 6 November 1849.

79 Tbid., I, No. 27, ‘‘Answers to inquirers on the subject of emigration’’; [,
No. 50, “‘Canada’’.

350 MISCELLANY

York, when he went in 1849),°” overcrowded, insanitary, with
food lable to run out before arrival in America; with the
traveller exposed to cheating in Liverpool before sailing, on
the voyage itself, and in the American ports on landing.
Barker admitted that he would never have understood the
trials of the voyagers if he had not travelled on an emigrant
ship.** He gave advice on where to stay in Liverpool®* (as
well as publishing other people’s recommendations for both
Liverpool and New York),** which Atlantic route to use, **
the expense of moving*’ (he gave seven pounds as the cost
to an individual of moving himself from England to Ohio),
and in which season of the year to cross,*° the attitude of the
New York customs officers*’ (‘‘The custom-house officers in
New York appear to be instructed to connive at emigrants
taking in a few things’’), routes inside the United States,**
and where people of various occupations were most likely to
find work and at what wages.*°

In this connection Barker was closely linked with the ship-
ping firm of William Tapscott and Co., Liverpool. Not only
did he begin to publish their advertisements in The People
with No. 62 (which must have appeared in the late summer
or early autumn of 1849), and print in No. 46 a lengthy sum-
mary of Tapscott’s Emigrant’s Travelling Guide through the
United States and Canada, but he claimed in the same article
that his emigrant’s card, which gave directions to a cheap,
comfortable house in Liverpool, together with a list of ships
and their departures, would ensure that Tapscott’s would take
the emigrant at the lowest fare. A certain J. Stephens must
have written to Barker criticising this association, for the next
issue of The People contained Barker’s indignant reply, deny-
ing that he had ever received commission on a single emigrant,
although he had directed ‘‘thousands.’’ He claimed to have
only just found out that he was entitled to the commission,
which would be paid on the fares of emigrants directed by
him. He was negotiating with Tapscott’s to have it applied

80 Jbid., II, Nos. 68, 69, “‘J. Barker’s voyage to America’’.

81 Ibid., II, No. 73.

82 fbid.,. I, Neo. 32° Hil, No. 107.

83 Tbid., II, Nos. 54, 67; Ill, Nos. 113-4 (a double number), 117.

84 Joid., 1, IOs) 1, das Vil, No. 214i.

85 Ibid., II, No. 87.

86 Ibid., I, No. 23.

87 Ibid., II, No

. 98.
88 Tbid., I; No. 12: HI, No: 88.
89 Jbid., \, No. 435 Ub. No: or; Lil, Ne: 107.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 351

to the good of the emigrants, and, if he was unsuccessful,
would use it to help the poorest emigrants to buy supplies. He
next announced’® that Tapscott’s had said he was bound to
accept the commission, and so he was going to take it, keep
an account of all that he received and how it had been spent
in the service of the emigrants. “‘If those of my friends who
intend to emigrate will form an association for mutual aid,
I will place the surplus at their command.’’ This is the last
mention of transferring the commission money, and there is
no evidence that Barker did so when he became treasurer of
the Bradford and Little Horton Emigration Society. A few
weeks later®* he returned to the subject for the last time,
announcing that, because Tapscott’s said it was necessary, he
must ask deposits of ten shillings for his Emigration Cards.
The deposits would be returned by Tapscott’s. The cards gave
information on the following subjects: where to lodge at Liver-
pool (Samuel Roberts’ Temperance Hotel, 17 Button Street,
Whitechapel), the Emigration office (Tapscott’s, St George’s
Buildings, Regents Road, near Clarence Dock), money
(Tapscott’s will give you a draft for your surplus money, pay-
able in New York, on sight), provisions (Mr Roberts will tell
you where to buy), and where to stay in New York for a
night or two (Joseph Netherwood,” 353, roth Street, who will
accommodate you, direct you to another place, or direct you
as to your route). Besides publishing Tapscott’s advertise-
ments, Barker published those of Train’s packet service to
Boston,®? which carried his own recommendation, and of
George M. Henry’s service to Philadelphia®*; but there is no
evidence of any deeper involvement with these concerns.
Barker was by temperament an extreme individualist and
ran his campaigns in his own way, but in his emigrationist
crusade he did associate himself, though tenuously, with cer-
tain other English public figures. He published a letter,
“‘Beware of American Land Jobbers’’ from Archibald
Prentice, besides publishing long extracts from his A Tour in
the United States, which had been first published in 1848, and

90 [bid., I, No. 48.

91 [bid., II, No. 54.

92 Perhaps the J. Netherwood who wrote to Benjamin Barker, sr., criticising
Joseph’s unwisdom in publishing letters in favour of emigration when there was
unemployment in New York, and presumably the Joseph Netherwood whom
Barker visited in New York on his American visit of 1849.

93 People, III, No. 141.

94 [bid., III, Nos. 145-6 (a double number).

252 MISCELLANY

he had Prentice as his chairman when he lectured on 27 and
29 November 1849 in the Mechanics’ Institute, Cooper Street,
Manchester.°’’ Barker also published*® Lawrence Heyworth’s
recommendation of Samuel Roberts, emigrant agent, of
Liverpool (probably the Roberts mentioned on Barker’s
Emigration Card). Heyworth was one of the sponsors of the
British Temperance Emigration Society’s colony at Gorstville,
Wis.°*’ Barker also published’® a long report of a ‘‘Speech of
George Thompson, M.P., in Boston, America’’ including
praise of the U.S.A., an appraisal of the English political
scene, and an attack on American slavery. For all his Chart-
ism and Republicanism, there is a strong flavour of the middle-
class radical about his views as expounded in The Peoble,
so that his association with these Manchester School Liberals
should not cause surprise.

Besides these occasional contacts with English public men,
Barker reviewed English authors’ books on America and
emigration. These reviews sometimes took the form of lengthy
partial reprints, and among the books so treated or recom-
mended without review, besides Archibald Prentice’s book
(mentioned above), were James Silk Buckingham’s America,
Historical, Statistic and Descnptive (1841), or his The Eastern
and Western States of America (1842) [Barker refers to
Buckingham’s account of travels without mentioning the title
of the book.],°° Mrs Burland’s A True Picture of Emigration;
or Fourteen Years in the Interior of North America,*°° James
Hornsby’s Account of a Visit to America; with many interest-
ing particulars respecting the country, the condition of the
people, etc.,'° and Mann’s Emigrant’s Complete Guide.*°*

95 Tbid., II, Nos. 59, 63-5; III, No. 87. Prentice (1792-1857) was a cotton manu-
facturer, newspaper owner and editor, long active in Manchester politics as a
middle class Radical, closely associated with, and soon to be historian of, the
Anti-Corn Law League. His career is sketched in Donald Read, Peterloo, the
““Massacre’’ and its Background (Manchester, 1958), 60-1.

96 People, II, No. 62. Heyworth (1786-1861) was a Bacup woollen manufacturer,
chairman of the Liverpool Free Trade Association, and, from 1848 to 1857, Liberal
M.P. for Derby.

97 F. Thistlethwaite, Anglo-American Connection, 192.

98 People, III, Nos. 145-6 (double number). Thompson’s anti-slavery and anti-
Corn Law activities are discussed in F. Thistlethwaite, op. cit.

99 Reformer’s Companion to the Almanacs, No. 2 (February 1848).

100 London, &c., 1848. The Leeds publisher was David Green, the Owenite-
Chartist-Redemptionist bookseller of Briggate, for whom see J. F. C. Harrison,
Social Reform in Victorian Leeds: the Work of James Hole, 1820-1895 (Thoresby
Society Monograph III, 1954), and his “‘Chartism in Leeds’’, in A. Briggs, ed.,
Chartist studies (London, 1959).

101 People, I, No. 38. James Hornsby was a teacher of phonography, for

OSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE”
5

He also published lengthy extracts*®* from C. H. Webb’s
Manual for Emigrants. Webb was superintendent of the
British Protective Emigrant Society, of 17 Rector Street, New
York, and warned against staying on the Eastern seaboard.
Barker was not only a fluent writer, but had a reputation all
over the North of England as a powerful and practised speaker.
The People mentions meetings on America and emigration
addressed by him after returning from his American trip, at
Manchester, Berry Brow, Sheffield, Bolton, Mossley, Bury,
Bingley, Keighley, Halifax and Leeds during the winter of
1849-50.*°*

At Sheffield, where he addressed ‘‘crowded audiences’’ in
the Town Hall, Barker was associated with two differing
streams of the Radical tradition. The chairmen were Isaac
Schofield and Isaac Ironside. Schofield was an Alderman who
“during his municipal career brought before the Council
annually a motion in favour of the People’s Charter,’’ as well
as being a Corn Law Repealer. He was for many years a
‘‘zealous and active member of the Wesleyan body’’ but was
expelled from it in June 1850 for attending Wesleyan Reform
meetings.*®? Isaac Ironside, for most of his life a stormy
participant in Sheffield politics, had been the signatory of the
letter inviting George Jacob Holyoake to become lecturer and
schoolmaster at the Owenite Hall of Science there, was the
first Chartist to sit on the Borough Council (he was elected in
1846) and later became associated with David Urquhart in
the Russophobe Foreign Affairs Committee movement.*’®

which Barker was an enthusiast (Christian, IV, No. 86, 1 February 1848). No
copy of his book survives in this country.

102 Mann’s Emigrant’s Complete Guide to the United States of America
(London, Leeds, &c., 4th ed., 1850). People, III, No. 125. The publisher and
printer was Alice Mann, of whom it had been falsely reported in 1839 that she,
Peter Bussey, and James Ibbetson had bought the Leeds Times as a Chartist
paper to rival the Northern Star (Leeds Mercury, 16 November 18309).

103 People, II, No. 72.

104 At Manchester on 27 and 29 November, and 18 and 19 December 1849; at
Berry Brow on 27 and 28 December 1849; at Sheffield on r4 and 15 January 1850;
at Bolton on 24 and 25 January 1850; at Mossley on 18 and 19 February 1850;
at Bury on 25 and 26 February 1850; at Bingley and Keighley on dates unknown,
but probably a little after the last of the foregoing. People, IJ, Nos. 87, 90, 92,
96. At Halifax for three nights in the Oddfellows’ Hall in early January 1850,
when he “‘blended his remarks with a few songs illustrative of the American
character’; and at a democratic soirée in the Music Hall, Leeds, on 21 January
1850, Barker spoke at length on America, and Feargus O’Connor and G. W. M.
Reynolds also addressed the gathering. Leeds Times, 12 and 26 January 1850.

105 Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, 6 January 1863; information kindly
given by the City Librarian, Sheffield.

106 Tronside to Holyoake, 5 April 1841 (Holyoake letter book, Bishopsgate
Institute, London; W. Owen, ‘‘The forerunners’? (J. Mendelson and _ others,
Sheffield Trades & Labour Council, 1858 to 1958. Sheffield, 1958).

354 MISCELLANY

Ironside was, however, not necessarily a convinced emigra-
tionist, for, in September 1848, he had taken the chair for
James Leach, the Manchester Chartist, when he spoke in
Sheffield on behalf of home colonization and against emigra-
tion.*’’ On the day after Barker’s second lecture he spoke at
a meeting addressed by Dr W. L. Roy of New York, President
of the United States Emigrant’s Protection Society, with Scho-
field again in the chair. Barker criticised Roy for giving the
impression that emigrants could meet ships’ captains before
booking passage, whereas in fact cabin passengers only had
access to the captains, and ordinary emigrants had to transact
their business with the ships’ agents.*°®

Joseph Barker developed during his editorship of The
People those contacts with Americans of advanced views which
he had begun to publicise in The Christian. Towards the end
of 1850°°° he stated that he had been reading the publications
of the American Anti-Slavery Society for ten or twelve years,
as well as William Lloyd Garrison’s paper, The Liberator,
and that Garrison, Henry Carey Wright, Frederick Douglass,
and William Wells Brown,**'® had been his guests. The
occasion was an article on ‘‘American Slavery, the American
Anti-Slavery Society, and the Orthodox Abolitionists of
Glasgow,’’ defending Garrison and Wright against the charge
of spending the funds of the American Anti-Slavery Society
“in the propagation of infidelity, in attacking the Holy
Scriptures, in advocating the abrogation of a weekly Sabbath,
and in pouring contempt on the christian church and
on the ordinances of Christ.’’ It is clear that the contacts
had been close, for Barker wrote to Garrison''* asking
him to announce his forthcoming American visit in The
Liberator and to ask Douglass to do the same in The North
Star. Douglass wrote to Barker'’~ asking him to co-operate
in enlarging the readership of The North Star, shortly after
which''* Barker announced that Douglass’s paper could be
obtained from him at Wortley, and S. H. Gay, editor of the

107 Sheffield Times, 30 September 1848.

108 Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, 19 January 1850.

109 People, III, No. 130.

110 An escaped slave and anti-slavery lecturer, who later practised medicine
and wrote books on American history. In 1849 he represented the American Peace
Society at the Paris Peace Congress. Dictionary of American Biography.

111 People, I, No. 52. Letter of 9 May 1849.

112 Jbid., Il, No. 108.

113 [bid., II, Nos. 111-2 (double number).

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE”’ 355

New York Anti-Slavery Standard, who had written to
Barker*** asking him to use his influence to persuade anti-
slavery working men to emigrate, became the American agent
for The People.**’ Barker also published letters from H. C.
Wright to Richard Davis Webb**® and T. E. Suliot of Liver-
pool,**’ from James and Lucretia Coffin Mott, Hicksite
Quakers and stalwarts of the Peace and Anti-slavery move-
ments, to Suliot,*** and from Webb to S. H. Gay’s Anti-
Slavery Standard.'*® Webb’s letter praised Peel and remarked
that Barker would be even stronger against slavery if he did
not admire America so much. Only a few months before leav-
ing for the U.S.A., Barker wrote to Garrison that he would
not make his home in America (though he would probably
come) if the Fugitive Slave Act remained in force.**” He was,
however, prepared to justify an aggressive war against the
Indians if British emigrants were refused permission to colon-
ise the thinly peopled areas of North America by the ‘‘few
untutored or indolent natives.’’ The would-be colonists should
first ask the Indians’ permission and do their best to benefit
them.*?* The nineteenth century Radical’s sympathy with the
““anderdogs’’ of American life seems generally to have been
confined to the Negro.

Apart from slavery and its abolition, the chief American
public question with which Barker concerned himself was land
policy, as befitted one who was making propaganda for settle-
ment on the land. He shared the Chartist and Radical pre-
occupation with the land question, but seems to have made
only two pronouncements capable of being interpreted as

114 [bid., II, Nos. 109-10 (double number).

ibid... LIS INO. 4a;

116 A Dublin Quaker, ‘‘one of the early strugglers in the temperance move-
ment...’’, Webb died ‘‘at an advanced age’’ in 1872. He was also associated
with Harriet Martineau. P. T. Winskill, The Temperance Movement and tts
Workers: A Record of Social, Moral, Religious and Political Progress (London,
78903 and md.; 4 vols:), I, 56; Il, 182. R. K. Webb, Harriet Martineau: a Radical
Victorian (London, 1960). ‘

117 People, II, Nos. 81 (to Webb, 12 August 1849), 92 (to Suliot, n.d.); IU,
Nos. 118, 132 (to Webb, n.d. and zr August [1850]). This last was written under
picturesquely romantic circumstances, in ‘‘one of the dark, majestic forests of
Ohio’, at midnight by the light of ignited natural gas escaping through water
in a pond. Suliot, a friend of Barker, emigrated to America, and in January 1851

was living at Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. People, III, Nos. 109-10 (double number)
and 157.

118 Jbid., II, No. 92. Lucretia wrote: ‘‘Wherever Joseph Barker may settle,
he will be likely to attract intelligent society. We have been made well acquainted
with him and his history through R. D. Webb.”’

119 Jbid., III, No. 127. Letter of 12 July 1850.

120 7bid., ILI, Nos. 133-4 (double number).

P20 foid., iL, Nov 8o.

356 MISCELLANY

approval of land nationalisation.'*” Instead, he took his stand
among the forerunners of Henry George, and proposed a tax
on land and land alone. He had made this the second point
of his 1847 election address'** and continued to advocate it
for Britain in The People.'** He proposed that the American
government should raise all its revenue by a tax on land of
sixpence an acre, which would ensure that individuals would
be prevented from monopolising land, landowners who did
not cultivate their land would be penalised, the improvement
of the country and the wealth of the people would be promoted,
commerce would be left unfettered and labour free, and the
interests of Labour would be promoted by a plentiful and
regular supply of work with just remuneration and an abund-
ant supply of products.'*? Barker also criticised Horace
Greeley’s scheme of Land Reform (settlers to be entitled to
buy 160 acres at $1.25 an acre; speculators to be forbidden
to buy below five dollars an acre), claiming that a single tax
of sixpence or a shilling an acre would more effectually serve
Greeley’s aim of preventing speculators from buying land and
leaving it unworked, and announcing that he planned to lay
his views before the American reformer.*”®

Barker was not content to urge his readers to go to America
but announced**’ that he had long ago made up his mind to
join his brothers in America. He elaborated his intentions in
later issues'** of The People. He leaned to Ohio as his place of
settlement, and was confirmed in this by his American visit
of 1849, which convinced him that it was better for a new-
comer to spend three to five pounds an acre for improved
land, near towns, villages, and markets, with neighbours,

122 In a reply to a letter from Richard Marsden, he said that the American
government had no right to sell land, but should let it at sixpence an~acre.
People, I, No. 16. In an obscure later pronouncement he said that all land should
be taxed, the government should be ‘“‘the only great landholder’’, and tax the
only rent. People, II, No. 102. These words are strikingly similar to Bronterre
O’Brien’s statement, that the ‘‘whole people or state is the only legitimate land-
lord in every country.’ National Reformer, 17 April 1847, quoted in A. Plummer,
“The place of Bronterre O’Brien in the working-class movement’’, Economic
History Review, II (1929-30), 74.

123 Northern Star, 26 June 1847.

124], No. 10; II, Nos. 93, to2; III, Nos. 133-4 (double number). George, how-
ever, advocated that the land tax should be ‘‘heavy enough to take as near as
may be the whole ground rent for common purposes.’’ Social Problems (London,
1884), 276.

125 People, I, No. 28.

126 Tbid., II, No. 83, ‘“‘The Land Question in America’’. Greeley was at this
time editor of the New York Tribune, which he had founded in 1841.

Ee bid., ¥, ING. 3k.

128 JI, Nos. 62, 70, 80, 85. Most of the details are in No. 62.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 357

roads, railways, and canals, and in the midst of a coal
and mineral region, than to buy much cheaper virgin land
in the wildernesses of Illinois or Wisconsin, though he con-
ceded that people already settled in Ohio might do better for
themselves by moving West. Probably he meant that farmers
with experience as well as capital would be able to create
larger farms in the virgin lands of the West. He estimated
that with the means he then had — he claimed a capital of
over £1,000 — he could in America employ a hundred of his
countrymen, and in six to twelve months a thousand more.
In an earlier article'’? he said that he could employ twenty
to thirty times the number he was then employing. His inten-
tion was to continue The People in Ohio and thus do good in
England by laying before it the workings of Democracy in
the United States. He certainly intended to buy and stock
farms on a large scale. ‘‘I hope to be able to form a tolerable
town, or at least to people tolerably a considerable stretch of
country.’’ He aimed to buy four or five thousand acres, build
a few houses and farms, and establish trade with the more
peopled districts and with England. Craftsmen, farmers and
labourers would be attracted. Barker himself would sell or
rent land, and those who rented would be encouraged to buy.
Owners would be free to dispose of their land. Goods would
be supplied from a store for cash or exchange, or on credit.
New arrivals would be given work and helped to find their
feet. Thus, there would be a house for them to live in until
they had their own. Barker claimed that his aims for emigrants
were a safe and comfortable journey across the Atlantic to
their destination, presumably through the arrangements
already discussed, a home and work awaiting them, and the
opportunity to get their own land, or to help themselves or
otherwise. One may wonder what were the reactions of some
of Barker’s working-class readers to this statement: ‘“‘My
opinon is, that by a few individuals with capital settling near
to each other, the advantages of co-operation may be secured
without any of those perilous arrangements which cause
jealousies, quarrels, and ruptures, by limiting the liberty of
individuals.’’ Perhaps his boast of employing a thousand
people can be explained as a hope that most of them would,
in fact, be working for the other ‘‘individuals with capital,’’
Barker having been the means of their getting work, but,

129 Tbid., I, No. 27. ‘‘Answers to inquiries on the subject of emigration’’.

358 MISCELLANY

even so, the number seems excessive for a 5,000-acre tract,
especially as he does not seem to have envisaged factory
building. Not content with this large scheme of economic
development, he contemplated being active in the abolitionist
cause.

A left-wing politician leaving his country with the good
fight still to be won always invites criticism from his allies and
followers, and Barker had to defend himself in The People.
His only London correspondent on American matters, Richard
Woodward, wrote a “‘Letter to Mr J. Barker, about his going
to America,’’*** accusing him of encouraging democrats to
abandon the struggle and leave those who were to carry on
the fight to do so against greater odds. Barker’s reply was that
aristocratic tyrants were not glad to see democrats going to
America, for they knew that increasing American power and
influence would eventually extinguish aristocratic government,
and that, in any case, he was not withdrawing from the fight.
He would continue to publish The People; he would send over
“Instructive and thrilling works by American Democrats;’’
he would occasionally visit the old country to lecture; and he
would be redeeming “‘a multitude of families from want and
starvation, and putting them in the way to plenty and inde-
pendence.’’ If he thought he would be less useful to England
in America than at home he would not go.

In Barker’s statement quoted above on the methods he
planned to use in creating a British settlement in Ohio the
reader will have noticed the reference to ‘‘perilous arrange-
ments which cause jealousies, quarrels, and ruptures, by
limiting the liberty of individuals.’’ It is now time to examine
in some detail Barker’s attitude to emigration societies and
communitarian efforts. He had, according to G. J. Holyoake**?
been one of the speakers at the first annual meeting, in 1847,
of the Leeds Redemption Society, but he is not mentioned as
a member or supporter of the Society by Dr J. F. C. Harrison
in his biography of James Hole or his account of the Society.***
He had, of course, in his Methodist New Connexion days
achieved fame as an anti-socialist lecturer,'®? but his views

130 Tbid., II, No. 84. Letter of 25 November 1849.

131 G. J. Holyoake, The Jubilee History of the Leeds Industrial Co-operative
Society ... (Leeds, 1897), 3. I owe this reference to Mr A. J. Peacock.

132 J, F. C. Harrison, Social reform in Victorian Leeds, and ‘‘The visions of
the Leeds Redemptionists’”’, Manchester Guardian, 22 June 1955.

133 Holyoake described him as having been ‘‘the best qualified adversary who
occupied co-operative [i.e. socialist] attention for a long period’, The History
of Co-operation in England (London, 1875-9, 2 vols.), I, 327.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE”’ 359

were now more moderate, and were mildly expressed in an
article on ‘‘France, Republicanism, Communism, etc.’’?**:
‘‘My opinion is, that single family arrangements, and some
form of private property, and something in the shape of
competition, are absolutely inevitable; are absolutely essential
to the healthy existence and the continued progress of our
species. My belief is, that Socialism, in the form in which
Robert Owen has presented it to the World, is at war with
human nature, — at war with the great and unchanging prin-
ciples of human nature . . . 1am willing to examine the subject
further.’’ He continued that he had ceased to consider Social-
ists depraved and unprincipled, as he had formerly done.

The eighteen-forties had seen many emigration societies of
a more or less communitarian character. The British Em-
igrants’ Mutual Aid Society has already been mentioned (in
fo@inete 37, page 340). lt may be added here that John
Noble of Rochester, Wis., and formerly of Rastrick, had
letters published in the Halifax Free Press as part of the
propaganda campaign of the B.E.M.A.S. in 1843, and in The
People.'*’ He was very likely connected with the Joseph Noble
of Rastrick, who, with several neighbours, disciples of Barker,
was invited in 1846 to hear the sermon at a Methodist New
Connexion Chapel. In it the preacher attacked ‘‘Mr Barker’s
disciples, doctrines and principles.’’ Joseph Noble of Rastrick
was a collector for the fund raised for Barker’s defence in
OAS. *°

Dr W. S. Shepperson,'*’ discusses the British Temperance
Emigration Society (most of whose membership was in the
West Riding and particularly the Leeds district), the Potters’
Emigration Society,'®*® the Albion Phalanx of Associated
Emigrants,’®’ and the Fourierist group organised by George
Sheppard of Leeds. A ‘‘democratic and atheistical’’ group was
the Democratic Co-operative Society for emigrating to the
Western States of America, a London society which, in con-

66

junction with continental groups, aimed at founding “‘a

134 People, II, No. 93.

135 Halifax Free Press, 15 April, 23 September 1843; People, II, No. 74.

136 Leeds Times, 2 and 9 May 1846; People, I, No. 24.

137 W.S. Shepperson, op. cit. ;

138 See also W. H. G. Armytage, ‘‘William Evans: a proponent of Emigra-
tion’, Dalhousie Review, 34 (1955), 167-172; and Harold Owen, The Staffordshire
Potter (London, 1901). =n

139 No doubt the same as the Albion Phalanx Emigration Association, whose
London meetings were advertised in The Movement (No. 10, 17 February 1844),
a socialist paper run by Holyoake and Maltus Questell Ryall.

360 MISCELLANY

democratic and irreligious world in the Arkansas or N.W.
districts.’’**° Thomas Hunt crossed the ocean with a party
of Owenite Socialists and founded in 1843 a colony at Spring
Lake, Wisconsin, which lasted for three years.'** All these,
and other, schemes had failed. One Society, at least (the
British Emigrants’ Mutual Aid Society), did not even get any
members across the Atlantic, so it is not surprising that Barker,
through observation as well as ideological suspicion, was
sceptical about most emigration societies. He claimed*** that
he wished success to the efforts of working men to better their
conditions in this way, but asserted that lack of capital caused
the failure of these efforts.

The Potteries have been pointed out as one of Barker’s most
important fields of activity, so he was well placed to comment
on the activities and management of the Potters’ Emigration
Society. The Society was not organised in Staffordshire alone,
and The People contains letters about it from, or Barker’s
replies to, correspondents in Manchester, Huddersfield, New-
castle upon Tyne, London, Dukinfield and Liverpool,'*’ as
well as places in the Potteries and from the settlement in Wis-
consin. He began by cautiously recommending the Society
as safe for investment,'** but soon afterwards**’ reported a
letter from Charles Heath of Shelton, near Hanley, suggesting
that the Society was in debt, and enclosing a letter from
Thomas Bull (whose name should probably have been printed
as Ball or Bell), dated from Pottersville in Wisconsin, com-
plaining that he and his family had had nothing from the
settlement’s store since they arrived, except a few pounds of
flour, declaring his intention of leaving Pottersville as soon
as he could, and advising others to give it a wide berth. William
Evans soon became involved in the controversy over the
Society of which he was the driving force. A lengthy warfare
(which cannot be followed in detail here) ensued in The

140 Movement, Nos. 10 (17 February 1844) and 29 (29 June 1844). This group’s
plans were reported at some length in the Northern Stay (23 March 1844).

141 T, Hunt, Report to a meeting of intending emigrants, comprehending a
practical plan for founding co-operative colonies of united interests, in the North-
West territories of the United States (London, 1843); Mrs Talbot C. Dousman,
The History of Waukesha County, Wisconsin (Chicago, 1880); M. E. McIntosh,
“Co-operative communities in Wisconsin’’, State Historical Society of Wisconsin,
Proceedings, 51 (1904), 113-5.

142 People, II, No. 71. j

143. Jbid., 1, Nos. 25,39: Li, Nos. $5, 80; 90; LM, Nos 121-2 (deuble number:

144 Tbid., 1, No: 25:

45 Joid., 1, INOS. 30, 34:

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE” 361

People. Barker printed letters from critics such as Enoch
Mountford, a former treasurer of the Society, who was well
known to him, charging Evans with extravagance and
drunkenness, and claiming that the circulation in the Potteries
of The Potters’ Examiner had dropped from 1,800 to 300,
that among potters the Society’s membership had sunk from
over 2,000 to less than 200, and that of the weekly income, £3.
tos. od. only was contributed by the Potteries members, who
controlled the Society, while the members in out-districts
contributed £100,'*° and from George Turner of Stoke, a
member of the Christian Brethren and later Mayor of Stoke’*’
supporting the general charge that the Potteries, which knew
Evans best, had lost faith in him.*** Barker also weighed in
with criticisms of the administration of the Wisconsin colony
from people who had gone out there, such as James Thomas
of Pottersville who wrote to his brother Enoch in Hanley,
‘““As it regards the object of the Society I cannot make it out,
except it be to send people to this country to be starved to
death,’’ continuing that many had gone home and many to
other parts of the United States because of the inadequacy
of the provision for them.'*® After several criticisms of this
sort, Barker’s final reference to the Potter’s Emigration
Society is a quotation from the River Times of Fort Winne-
bago, Wisconsin, of an advertisement that the Society’s estate
is to be sold for debt on the r&th of ‘“‘this month, November’’
bESsoqu.>”

Barker’s views on emigration societies in general are con-
tained in an article entitled ‘‘Emigration Societies — my own
plan.’’'’' “‘IT have been urged over and over again to form an
Emigration Society, but have as repeatedly refused to do so.
I can see no necessity for an Emigration Society. I can see
no advantage which intending emigrants could gain by form-
ing a Society. A few individuals may gain an advantage, at
the expense of others, but the members of the Society generally
can gain no advantage. If a number of individuals form a
Society and subscribe each one shilling a week, until there
are funds sufficient to pay the passage of two individuals to

148 Toid., I, Nos. 41t (letter of 18 February 1849), 48 ae letter).

147 J, Beard, ‘‘Unitarianism in the Potteries from 1812’’, Tvansactions of the
Unitarian Historical Society, 6 (1935-8), 25.

148 People, I, No. 44 (undated letter).

149 Tbid., Il, Nos. 111-2-(double number). Undated, letter.

150 [bid., III, No. 135.

V5 Tbhid.,\ +, No. 86.

362 MISCELLANY

the United States; if the members then cast lots which two
shall have the funds thus subscribed, the two on whom the
lots fall will be gainers, but the other subscribers will be losers.
If a Society be formed on another principle, the principle of
granting the contributions of the Society, when they reach
to the amount of ten or twelve pounds, to the person who bids
the highest premium for the amount; the man who obtains
the money may be a gainer; but the rest will still be propor-
tionately losers. And so with respect to all other societies that
are formed on these principles. If the Society be formed on
the principle of each member contributing a shilling, two
shillings, or five shillings a week until there is enough to con-
vey the whole of the members across the ocean; if each mem-
ber then receive the amount of his contributions to enable
him to cross the ocean, he has, in that case, lost nothing by
the Society, but he has gained nothing. He would have been
in just the same position if he had saved his earnings himself,
or entrusted them to some trust-worthy person to save for
laumaig?

The Potters’ Emigration Society was of the first type*®?
and Barker did not miss the opportunity of criticising it, on
this: amd: other grounds .“‘They are LOTTERIES -aand im
general, badly managed lotteries; lotteries with few prizes,
and many blanks, — Lotteries by which the managers thrive,
while most of the subscribers perish.’’

“‘Besides; those Emigration Associations almost invariably
end in quarrels, Law-suits, robbery and ruin. The Temper-
ance Emigrant Association appears to be ending thus. The
Potters’ Emigration Society bids fair to end thus. A few in-
dividuals get hold of the funds, and take them along with
them across the ocean, and the mass of the members, who
remain at home, have no redress.’’ This bitterness may per-
haps have some connection with the case of Jabez Todd,
grocer, of Huddersfield. He had been a member of the com-
mittee of the British Emigrants’ Mutual Aid Society in 1843.*°°
Barker had appealed for news of his whereabouts in The
Christian of 1 March 1848, saying he had business with Todd
(and others) if only he could learn their addresses. Two years
later the Leeds Times referred to him as having ‘‘absconded’’
to America, owing money.*’*

152 W. S. Shepperson, op. cit., 96.
153 Northern Star, 27 May 1843, advt.
154 20 July 1850.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE”’ 363

The only type of society of which Barker could approve
was one whose members had the prospect ‘‘of transferring
their whole number to another country in a short or reason-
able time.’’ After a discussion of the ways in which he could
help emigrants both on their way to America and after their
arrival (not differing in any substantial way from the account
given above), including a proposal, which was never put into
effect, to publish an emigrants’ guide, he continued:

‘‘Several have urged me to take charge of their money, or
their savings, till they have got together sufficient to take
them to America, or to purchase land there. This is a more
delicate business. I had rather people would take care of their ©
own money. At the same time, if there be any who think that
they cannot take care of their savings till they have got suffic-
ient to take them away, or to purchase them a piece of land,
I will act as their treasurer. I will give them for any sum of
money of one pound or upwards the same interests as savings’
banks give, and return them their money whenever they de-
sire it. If they choose to allow it to remain with me till they
have sufficient to pay their expenses to America, I will retain
u-tor them. If they should decide to remain in their native
land, and wish to have their money to spend at home, they
shall have it at a day’s notice. Mark, — I ask no one to place
money in my hands; on the contrary, I rather counsel them
to keep it in their own possession. I have no want of any one’s
money myself. I have more at present than my business re-
quires. I simply offer to accept people’s money, — first,
because I have been urged to do so, and secondly, because
it seems to me that if I do not become the treasurer of certain
intending emigrants, they will, in some cases, place their
money in the hands of parties who may not be prepared or
disposed to return it when required.’’ Barker continued by
suggesting that local ‘‘treasurers’’ should be found who would
be willing to act in the way he had outlined.

It is not known whether Barker followed his own suggestion
and became a “‘treasurer’’ for individuals planning to em-
igrate. He did allow his name to be used by the Bradford
Co-operative Emigration Society. Jonathan Rogers, of 30
Park Lane, Little Horton, Bradford, announces the formation
of this Society in a letter, dated 25 April 1849, published in
The People, I, No. 51. In that month a group of readers of
The People held a meeting to form an association for emigra-

364 MISCELLANY

tion to America, and resolved to send Barker an outline of
their plan. The Society was to have about fifty members (with
or without families), who were to contribute ‘‘one dollar’’
each by Whit Monday, those dollars to be sent to Barker, as
deposit for the land he was to choose for the Society when he
went to America. Thenceforward contributions (at an un-
specified rate) were to be paid weekly or monthly. When
sufficient had been collected, several members were to go out
to the American lands to start cultivation. The proceeds of
this, together with the contributions of those at home, would
enable the rest of the members to get to America. In America,
the Society would cultivate the land until it was paid for,
when it would be distributed fairly by lots. Barker, asked for
his comments, was unusually reticent, merely saying that he
was unwilling to be solely responsible for choosing the land
in America, and asking if the Society could name anyone in
America to accompany him.

A few weeks after, The People’’? published an article
clearly inserted by the Society, ‘‘To Those who wish to emigrate
to America. A new Association.’? The majority of people in
Bradford were continually in want, or in fear of it. The need
now was to consider, not whether this state was due to the
introduction of machinery or anything else, but how to remedy
it. The Potters’ Emigration Society appeared likely to fail,
and it was unlikely that its members would get farms in
America before the members of O’Connor’s Chartist Land
scheme did in England.*’® Both were founded on a “‘tardy
lottery-like plan.’’ A far better model was the scheme sug-
gested in Mann’s Emigrant’s Complete Guide, whereby 200
members, each paying sixpence a week, might be settled on
the land in six years.*’’ The Bradford Society would double
the contribution, and hope to accomplish its aim in half the
time. The rules included the following: (1) Members to be

155 TJ, No. 55.

156 In 1849 the National Land Company was still in existence, but in decline.
Mrs J. McAskill says that in three years it settled about 250 of its 70,000 mem-
bers on the land. A. Briggs, ed., Chartist Studies (London, 1959), 320.

157 “Co-operative emigration’’ was the title of ch. 7 of Mann’s Emigrant’s
Complete Guide. It proposed that the 200 members should be of the same town,
that three emissaries should first be sent to the intended place in the west, to
cultivate it and send remittances home, and that after a year a party of the
strongest members, including representatives of the trades most in demand in
the new States should go out .The estate was to be a co-operative community,
and the Davidites of Canada, and the Rappites, Fourierists, and Shakers of the
U.S.A. were invoked as examples of communitarian prosperity.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE”’ 365

admitted by ballot and (4) not to include drunkards or
profligates, (2) the members and their families were to be
established on a joint farm somewhere in America, (3) the
contribution was to be one shilling a week, (5) groups outside
Bradford might form branches, (6) officials were to be unpaid
(the founders no doubt had the Potters’ Society in mind again),
(10) monthly meetings of the whole membership were to decide
important matters, (13) as soon as enough money had been
raised, the Society would choose the first party to emigrate.
Succeeding parties were to be chosen by lot and (15) the
Society's money was to be deposited in the Bradford Savings
Bank in the name of Joseph Barker. Communications were
to be sent to ‘“Mr Greenwood, Bookseller,’’ School Street,
Manchester Road, Bradford.

Barker wrote to the Secretary of the ‘‘Bradford or Little
Horton Emigration Society’’*’* on 6 June 1849, agreeing to
act as the Society’s agent in America, where he would either
buy a small estate near where he himself thought of settling,
or an estate large enough for the Society and himself, part of
which he would offer to the Society, with no obligation to
buy. He acknowledged receipt of eight pounds as a deposit,
and announced that he planned to start for America in ten or
twelve days. In fact, he sailed from Liverpool on 23 June.*’°

In a statement published in The People, II, No. 62, the
Bradford Co-operative Emigration Society (Secretary, Jona-
than Rogers; Treasurer, Joseph Barker; and Bankers, East
Morley and Bradford Savings Bank), describing itself as hav-
ing been established in June 1849, announced a modification
of its former communitarian aims. Although the first part of
the work of settlement was to be done co-operatively, the
property was to be distributed after five years, when it was
hoped that some, at least, of the members might wish to set
up a permanent community. Meanwhile the Bradford Observer
praised the scheme in its issue of 6 September 1849, which
disclosed that ‘‘The Society proposes to purchase a farm in
the new state of Wisconsin,'®® and they hope to send out a
first batch of settlers in April next.’’ The Society urged its
supporters to watch The People for Barker’s reports, and
Barker promised that the Society would hear from him when

158 People, II, No. 60.

HES bid., il, No. 62.

160 Footnote 67 draws attention to Barker’s later, unfavourable, view of
Wisconsin.

366 MISCELLANY

he had had an opportunity of seeing the country,’®* but he
seems never to have made any report, except to allege during
his paper war with Samuel Saunders (for whom see below)
that a certain Joseph Bromley, a member of the Society, had
been deceived by Saunders into buying worthless land in
Virginia — ‘‘All rocks, hills, or high mountains.’’*®? At any
rate it was announced in later issues of The People'®* that two
members of the Society had gone to America to look at land,
that “‘the person’’ sent out had “‘fixed upon’’ land in Indiana,
and that ‘‘Mr Greenwood’’ had pre-empted g60 acres, seven
members and their families being on the land with every chance
of success.

The last mention of the Society in The Peofle,*** suggests
a less cheerful future for the Bradford emigrants. W. Green-
wood reported that, after transactions which suggest a con-
spiracy between W. L. Roy, of New York, and W. Elsworth,
of Indiana, to trap immigrants into paying much higher prices
for land than they intended, he and his party had pre-empted
1,120 acres, and had had it surveyed and partly laid out for
a town, to be called Bradford. Elsworth immediately went to
the land office, bought all the good land west of the Bradford
location, and swore an affidavit that unless Greenwood’s party
complied with the pre-emption law he would take their land
with a military search warrant, which he could do for three
shillings and sixpence an acre.

The Bradford Society published its statements of moneys
received in The People,**’ the last report being a complete
statement of income to g February 1850. It reveals that
although Bradford was the birthplace of the Society, as well
as giving it its name, it raised only about a fifth of the Society’s
funds — £26, 15s. od. out\of a total vol {125° i4saaa@)
Bow (presumably, if surprisingly, the London suburb) and
Huddersfield each contributed a further fifth, and Bury about
an eighth — £16. 8s. 8d. No other town, except Sunderland,
contributed more than six pounds, the other places represented
being Stanhope (County Durham), Manchester, Newcastle
upon Tyne, Bolton-on-Dearne (South Yorkshire), Tunstall,
Tintwhistle (Cheshire), Rannow, London, Northampton,

161 People, II, Nos. 68, 77.

_ 162 [bid,, II, No. 89.
163 JJ, No. 93; III, Nos. 107, 133-4 (double number).

164 JIT, Nos. 151-2 (double number).
BGS 1), Nos. 77, 35, (04.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 367

Barnard Castle, Liverpool, Rochdale, Blackburn, and
‘‘various places’’ (whose “‘entrance dollars’? amounted to
#1. 14s. od.). This last statement seems not to allow for £1.
4s. Od. from Hull, £1. 8s. 4d. from Macclesfield, and other
small sums in the earlier lists, but probably this does not dis-
turb the general picture.

Barker seems to have lost interest in the Bradford Society,
and the only other which he recommended was the Halifax
Emigration Society,*°® “‘the least objectionable of any I have
seen... [his society is nota LOTTERY, nor does it interfere
in any way with the freedom of the members. Its object is to
lend a helping hand to men who are able and willing to work,
but who are unable to obtain employment at home, to enable
them to remove themselves and their families to whatever
country they please.’’ (My italics.) The society, which W. S.
Shepperson describes as ‘“‘widely publicised,’’*°* enrolled both
intending emigrants and honorary members, whose contribu-
tions might be earmarked for families of their choice. There
was no question of the Society’s buying land, in America or
anywhere else. The shares, which were of one pound in value,
and which were subscribed for at the rate of as little as a penny
a week, were completely at the disposal of the members. An
interesting service provided by the society was a library of
emigration literature. The trustees of the society were Henry
Ackroyd, William Alexander, m.p.,*°* and Jonathan Smith,
all of Halifax, and meetings were held at Crowther’s Temper-
ance Hotel, Silver Street, Halifax. Crowther himself was a
committee member.

Besides attacking what he conceived to be dangerous
emigration societies, Barker played a considerable part in
exposing Samuel Saunders, the fraudulent agent for West
Virginia lands belonging to O’Connor of New York. Prof.
Shepperson has outlined the story. °° Tt is perhaps worth add-
ing that Barker published letters home from John Booth, a
fustian finisher of Salford, and Thomas Ince*’’ corroborating
his reports, more than a year before Booth returned from
America (he left there in April 1851) and obtained Saunders’s

166 People, II, No. 90. Answer to William Kitchenman, and an article on the
society.

167 W. S. Shepperson, op. cit., 113.

168 aes as described as M.P. in People, II, No. 90. Correction printed in
No.

lee ‘One , 545

170 Eee “lie No. 84. Letters to their families, 31 October and 2 November
1849.

368 MISCELLANY

committal for trial on a charge of obtaining money from him
by false pretences. Saunders evaded justice by jumping bail
and fleeing to America, leaving information that ‘‘he should
not allow his bondsmen to suffer.’’*”*

Finally, Barker guided his readers by making an exploratory
journey to the United States, and by reporting on what he
found. Writing to William Lloyd Garrison in May 1849,*””
he stated his aims in visiting America. They were: to see
Garrison and other friends, to learn about America, to collect
information that would be useful to emigrants, to make sure
that it was advisable for himself and his family to make the
move, and to establish an agency for some of his publications.

Barker sailed from Liverpool in the Hartford on 23 June
1849.°’° He found the Irish in the steerage lively but the
English (including people from Manchester, Hyde and his
own birthplace, Bramley) ‘‘rather sorrowful and melancholy.’’
He talked to the English and sang ‘‘A Good Time Coming,’’
‘Sparkling and Bright’’ (a temperance song), and ‘““The
Tyrolese Evening. Hymn.’ The next’ day; Sunday, ne
preached, or lectured, -on the quarter-deck. Most “of the
Catholics and some of the Protestants refused to attend. He
urged cleanliness, temperance, mutual forebearance and
charity as essential for the voyage. He lectured on at least two
other Sundays, as well as speaking on Government at a week-
day gathering. On Sunday, 29 July, he noted that many of
the passengers were reading his publications.*** One had The
People, one had the Almanac and its Companions, others had
collections of tracts. Others were reading his editions of
Channing’s works and Frederick Douglass’s autobiography,
as well as Barker’s own Review of the Bible. Most of the
passengers, he noted, were Irish — some farmers and shop-
keepers, but mostly labourers; and the English included
several paper-makers from Kent, sent off by their trade union.
By 8 August probably two-thirds of the emigrants had finished
their own provisions, and had to rely on the ship’s allowance;
however the tribulations of the voyage were soon to end, for
on the 13th, in the eighth week out of Liverpool, land was
sighted. Part of Barker’s outburst on seeing Long Island may
be quoted.

171 People, N.S., 5 and 19 July 1851.
172 People, I, No. 52.
173 Poud., ti, INO. 68:
174 Towd., 11, No. 6:

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 369

‘How strangely do I feel! I have dreamed of America for
six and thirty years. The thought of it has haunted me both
day and night. It has crossed me in my path; it has followed
me to my couch; and has never, for any length of time, for-
saken me. It has awakened within me the most thrilling
emotions. America has long appeared to me the most interest-
ing and important country upon earth. And now I see it. Its
trees stand waving before my eyes. Its hills are rising yonder
on the horizon. Beyond are its boundless forests, its intermin-
able fields, its hills and plains of inexhaustible riches. O Land
of hope for the perishing millions of Europe, — thou refuge
for the wronged and tortured sons of toil, — thou home of
the outcast brave; God grant, that in thy valleys and among
thy hills, the poor and plundered ones may ever find a home.
Thank God that I have lived to see this day .. .”’

Two days later Barker landed in New York. He had not
been on shore ten minutes before he met a man he knew, the
chairman of a ““confederate’’ meeting that Barker had attended
at Stalybridge in 1848, who, Barker thought, had left the
country to avoid government persecution.*’’? The ‘‘clean,
healthy and cheerful appearance’’ of the city pleased the
traveller, but he was disappointed with its narrow streets, and
felt ‘‘a want of that solidity, that massiveness, that complete-
ness of workmanship, which you see in such places as Liver-
pool and Manchester.’’ One of the first things he did was to
visit the phrenologists Fowler and Wells to obtain his “‘phren-
ological character.’’*’® He also met Joseph Netherwood, who
was working as a labourer and taking in boarders, and whose
children, Barker noted, were schooled free. Netherwood told
him that many native-born Easterners, as well as immigrants,
were going to Wisconsin and Iowa, and described a teetotal
emigration society formed at Seneca Falls, New York,*”’
whose members planned to travel together, and settle near

175 By ‘‘confederate’’ Barker probably means Chartist. The summer of 1848,
after the rejection of the third Chartist Petition, saw some acts of violence, includ-
ing the murder of a policeman at Ashton-under-Lyne, a mile or two from Staly-
bridge (D. Réad, “Chartism in Manchester’, in A. Briggs, ed., Chartist Studies,
64), and there may well have been a few violent men in Stalybridge with reason
to fear government prosecution.

176 The enthusiasm for phrenology among British and American radicals is
noted by F. Thistlethwaite, Anglo-American Connection, 69, 130. Barker pub-
lished many works by Orson Squire Fowler. Advertisement in People, Ill, Nos.
133-4 (double number).

177 Seneca Falls already had a place in the radical mystique, as the meeting

place, in 1848, of the first women’s rights convention in the U.S.A., and as the
scene of the activities of Mrs Amelia Bloomer.

Bes, MISCELLANY

each other as independent owners. This information appar-
ently came from a letter Netherwood read to Barker, from
Thomas P. Kellet, formerly of Armley, Leeds, who had come
to America years before and was now a foreman and share-
holder in the Middlesex Factory at Lowell. Kellet heartily
approved of the Seneca Falls scheme, saying that while they
in Lowell had been talking on these lines, Seneca Falls had
acted. He was glad to see people going to the West, and be-
lieved that it would be the “‘centre of gravity for Republican
principles.’’ He was looking forward to the time when he had
enough land to make himself independent of the factory
system. While in New York, Barker was also visited by his
friend James Ballantyne, a Glasgow printer, who had arrived
in the country three weeks ago and found no difficulty in
getting work.*’®

After five days in New York, Barker set out on the first
stage of his journey of exploration, by river-boat to Albany.*”
On board he was asked if he were not Joseph Barker by one
Joseph Tate, a Northumbrian machine-maker who had worked
for the Great Western Railway at Swindon for three years
before coming to America four months ago. He was now work-
ing at an ironworks at Mattewan, near Newburgh, on the Hud-
son River, and was saving up to go West and buy land.
Another who accosted Barker was John Renwick, who had
been agent for Barker’s publications in Bolton ten years ago,
in his New Connexion days. From Albany he travelled by
train to Buffalo, then by boat to Cleveland, and by coach to
Cuyahoga Falls (which now forms part of the Cleveland
metropolitan area).'** After an overnight stay there he pressed
on to the farms of his brothers Jonathan and Samuel, which
were within about two miles of Akron. Now that he was at
last in the Ohio he had so often praised he did not lose his
critical faculty. He reported that he found the farming bad
in the area, and remarked on the crudity of the fences, troughs
and such. However, he was much taken with an estate near
Munroe Falls and declared that he would have bought it if
he had not to go to West Virginia, and, if possible, into the
West (i.e. Illinois and Wisconsin).**'

After about a fortnight in the Cuyahoga and Munroe Falls

178 People, Ll, No. 70.
179 Tota. Wh, NO. 797i.

LSO Jotd. Vi, INOS. 72, 7%.
WEE bid. Ut, INOS: 74, 77.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 371

area, Barker set off with his brother Samuel and Jonathan
Wilkinson (probably some sort of amanuensis),**? in a hired
buggy, for his brother John’s farm at Millwood, in Knox
County, central Ohio, where he eventually settled for some
years."°* John had spent all he had in buying his land, and
had no money left for improving it, consequently he was work-
ing at his trade as well to keep his family.*** Joseph believed
that he had not worked the land as he ought. He reported that
land was cheaper here than at Cuyahoga and Munroe Falls,
but that coal was dearer and social advantages fewer, also
that many of the Millwood people were ‘‘low and drunken.’’
However, there was plenty of opportunity for farmers and
artisans. With this report came a warning to the unrealistic:
“IT repeat, America is all that its friends and admirers have
represented it to be; but America is not all shut up in a few
square miles of ground; nor do its wonders and beauties, its
glories and grandeurs, all disclose themselves to the traveller
or the resident in a day . . . no man has the right to expect
either to get the best jobs, or to feel himself at home, for the
first few months.’’

Leaving Jonathan Wilkinson behind, stricken with ague
(due, Barker claimed, to over indulgence in animal food, tea,
and coffee), Joseph and Samuel turned south-east and began
the journey to the Virginia lands which Samuel Saunders was
advertising, and which Barker was determined to inves-
tigate.**? On the way they passed through Zanesville, Ohio,
where Samuel visited the potteries and met several Stafford-
shire men who knew Joseph. Mrs Hallam, the pottery-owner’s
wife, was one of his admirers, and a reader of his writings.
Hallam himself had come over seven years before as a work-
ing potter. Barker thought Zanesville a good place for his
brother Benjamin to found a woollen mill. But Benjamin
stayed at home and became the head of B. Barker and Son,
cloth and doeskin manufacturers, at Butterbowl Mill, Farnley,

182 In People, II, No. 69, Barker wrote that if George Edmund would get on with
his phonography he should be Barker’s amanuensis and accompany him on his
journeys. In No. 77 he refers to leaving for Millwood with Samuel and ‘‘my young
man’’, giving his name as Jonathan Wilkinson in the next number. George
Edmund appears not to have got on with his phonography and to have seen the
job go to the gluttonous Wilkinson.

183 People, II, No. 77.

184 Tbid., II, No. 78.

185 Barker sometimes refers to these lands as being in Virginia, and sometimes
as in West Virginia. In fact, they were in that part of the State of Virginia
which seceded in 1863 to form West Virginia.

H

372 MISCELLANY

and later at Sheepshanks Mill, Kirkstall Road, Leeds.**®
After passing through Williamsport, Va., on the Ohio River
opposite Marietta, Ohio, where Barker did not fail to note the
poverty of Virginia compared with Ohio, and meeting his first
slave, at which ‘‘a strange, indescribable feeling thrilled my
whole soul,’’ he arrived at Sistersville, near O’Connor’s lands,
and then journeyed on through wild, hilly and barren country
to see Underwood, O’Connor’s agent, and sheriff of Tyler
County. He claimed that O’Connor did not reimburse him
for his payments of taxes and other expenses, and added
“that 1f Mr O’Connor is holding forth these lands as fit for
emigrant settlements, for farming purposes, it is an imposition
and I will be no party to it.’’ Barker spent some seven hours
examining the lands, and reported that they were the wildest
he had ever seen — perhaps one acre in a hundred being worth
cultivating. ““The Tops are like wedges; and the bottoms are
like holes for wedges.’’ O’Connor had claimed that thirty or
forty purchasers had come over, or were coming, to settle;
but Barker found no sign of any. If they had come, he
concluded, they had gone back. Settlement there was an
impossibility.

He continued the attack in the next number of The People
(No. 79). O’Connor could not be excused by pleas of lowered
circumstances and consequent temptations. The facts were
enough — he had been guilty of misleading emigrants.
Saunders was guilty too, for, if Barker’s memory was right,
he had claimed that he had “‘seen those lands and surveyed
them.’’ They were not worth half so much as the “roughest,
ruggedest, and barrenest parts of Blackstone Edge,’’ and he
was prepared to prove this in a law court if necessary, and
to help any wronged people sue Saunders.

Barker now turned west again, through Zanesville, where
he was invited to lecture at the Universalist Church,**’
Cincinnati, Columbus and Springfield, Ohio, where the con-
ductor turned three Negroes out of Barker’s railway carriage,
Sandusky, Detroit, and New Buffalo, Mich., to Chicago,
where he had a letter of introduction to Adam, the Unitarian
minister.*°* Here he stayed two days, reflecting on the

186 Benjamin Barker, jr., ‘“‘Recollections. Book I’’, 4-5 (Thoresby Society
library, MS.- Box 2<1)..

187 Starting from evangelical premises the Universalists, a native American
‘group, had reached a Unitarian position in theology, and were devoted to social
morality.

188 People, II, No. 80.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “THE PEOPLE” 373

superiority of Ohio, with its improved land, over what was
then the Far West, as a place of settlement, at least for new-
comers like himself (with, he only obliquely pointed out, the
capital to buy improved estates), and on the large number
of book hawkers*** he saw in the United States, at such places
as railroad stations and steamer wharves, selling cheap (and
probably pirated) editions of famous books especially pro-
duced for the purpose by American publishers. Barker claimed
that books which would cost ten shillings to a pound at home
could be bought for the equivalent of sixpence to a shilling in
America.

On Wednesday, 3 October 1849, Barker reached the
Westernmost place that he was to see on this visit — Mil-
waukee. His intention was to go from there to Pottersville,
but, on finding that no public conveyance went nearer than
fifty miles from the settlement, and that the return trip by
wagon would take a fortnight, he abandoned this plan and
decided to make for the East at once, as the frost and rains
were coming. Before leaving Milwaukee, on the same day,
he got what information he could from the agent of the Potters’
Emigration Society and others, on Pottersville and Wisconsin
generally. He heard that the Pottersville land was good and
should do well in time, if properly managed, but there were
frequent disputes among the settlers, and ‘‘serious disputes
with the managers.’’ He now made for New York, stopping
only for a few days at Cuyahoga Falls with his friend William
Gilling, who had been a reader of The Christian at home in
Worksop in 1846,*°° and for a visit to Niagara Falls.*°* In
New York he left a letter for S. H. Gay, of the Anti-Slavery
Standard, assuring him that when he returned to America
he hoped to be active in the Abolitionist cause, and was anxious
to co-operate with those who differed from him on other issues,
such as religion.**”

Barker’s American reports ended with a few reflections.
On Ohio, he completely denied what he had been told in Eng-
land, that much land in Ohio was like Blackstone Edge
Moors’®?; and, on Ohio’s climate and healthiness, he agreed
the winter was colder than in England, but claimed that the

189 [bid., II, No. 82.

199 Christian, II, No. 43, 442.
191 People, II, No. 83.

192 Tbid., II, No. 85.

193 Jbid., II, No. 84.

374 MISCELLANY

dry and clear atmosphere made it no worse.*®* It was true
that there were swamps, and hence ague, in Ohio, but they
would be drained, and it should be remembered that there
were no overcrowded and unhealthy towns like those of Eng-
land. Here his experience of industrial Northern England
enabled him to appeal to his readers in terms that would be
directly applicable to their condition. Of America in general
he complained,**’ “I never, in any country, heard such
horrible and endless cursing and swearing.’’ He also remarked
adversely on the plague of spitting (though emigrants,
especially Germans, were the worst offenders), and the false
modesty of the women. Because the people were prosperous
and content with the system of government, ‘‘Policemen do
not appear to be needed in the United States.’’

Did all this propaganda actually influence people to leave
their homes and friends and go to America? Barker himself
said that he had lost “‘some thousands’’ of subscribers by
emigration,’®® without actually claiming any credit. In the
next number was printed a letter from eight emigrants from
the North-East, waiting for their boat at Liverpool, who de-
clared that they had followed the advice of The People, “‘that
widely circulated and valuable little journal.’’ Emmanuel
Warwood, who had been a collector of subscriptions for the
Barker Library and for the steam press, and a leading figure
among the Christian Brethren at Oldbury, Staffordshire,**’
wrote from America*®* that he had met many who had been
influenced by Barker to come to America. John McAtamny,
of Ghent, Ohio, in a letter published in The People, when it
was out of Barker’s hands, but clearly referring to the time
of Barker’s editorship,**’ wrote ‘‘And as it was through The
People that I first got a knowledge of this country, I must
now return you my sincere thanks.’’ He was working as a
handloom weaver at two places near Akron and Cuyahoga
Falls. Robert Carr, of Shotley Bridge, Co. Durham, believed
that the letters published in The Companion to the Almanacs
and The People had persuaded many in that neighbourhood
to emigrate to the United States.*°° As telling as these sym-

194 Tbid., II, No. 86.

195 Totd., il, No. 84.

196 Jbid., I, No. 4o.

197 Christian, II, No. 42, 423, No. 43, 449; IV, No. 85 (14 January 1848), 309.
198 People, III, No. 108. No date or place are given for this letter.

199 People, N.S., 15 March 1851.

200 People, I, No. 45.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE”’ 375

pathetic reports are the criticisms of those who believed that
Barker was misleading people by his reports of American
prosperity, like Joseph Netherwood, who claimed to have met
one disappointed man in America who had been encouraged
to come by Barker’s publications, an unnamed critic returned
from America, and Joseph Willetts, of Wheeling, Va., who
reported that he often met disillusioned readers of The
People.*®* The pressures that might lead to emigration to the
United States at this time were strong enough, but it seems
clear that Barker made a contribution toward strengthening
the movement and guiding it in an American direction.
Furthermore, for all his extravagance of phrase, the advice
he gave was basically sound and balanced. It is strange that
in his autobiographical sketch, Teachings of experience, pub-
lished twenty years later, Barker recalls his American en-
thusiasm at this time without even mentioning his advocacy
of emigration.*°* Perhaps the explanation is that he connected
it with the political radicalism which he had then abandoned.
We should at this point remember Barker’s amazing energy.
Not only was he campaigning in The People for Republican-
ismiaand a union ot Chartist and Radical forces,*°* for his
radical religious position, and for his advanced views on such
subjects as diet and education, but at the same time he was
a Town Councillor for Holbeck and Bramley Wards success-
ively, in 1848-9 and 1849-50°°* and was printing and publish-
ing cheap tracts and books at Wortley. His Americanist and
emigrationist propaganda is thus seen as part of a general
programme of communal and individual advancement.
Barker said that he gave up the Companion when its
circulation fell below 5,o00,”°° but it is difficult to arrive at
a figure for The People. He himself made great claims for it.
In the same number he wrote ‘‘My People has had the most
extensive circulation of any provincial paper yet published,
and the Political Instructor,*°® which treads to a great extent
in the steps of The People, which uses to a great extent the

20¥7bid., I, No. 38; 11, No. 54; 411, No. 108.

202 Teachings of Experience; or, Lessons I have Learned on my Way through
Life (London, 1885), 88-9. First published in 1869.

203 J. F. C. Harrison, ‘‘Chartism in Leeds’’, in A. Briggs, ed., Chartist studies,

6-7.

204 J. Mayhall, Annals of Yorkshire, I (Leeds, 1861), 570, 580.

205 People, II, No. 91. Reply to John Gibson.

206 Reynolds’ Political Instructor, published by the Chartist G. W. M. Rey-
nolds, whose Reynolds’ News still survives.

376 MISCELLANY

same style, and inculcates the same great principles, is gaining
a still greater circulation.’’ One cannot believe, however, that
Barker’s paper ever gained a larger circulation than The
Northern Star’s 32,000 in its heyday. In later life, when he
had abjured his radicalism, he claimed that The People “‘be-
came a favourite with the ultra-democrats . . . More than
twenty thousand a week were sold.’’**’ Although, when
Barker was trying to sell his old stock before emigrating, he
offered back numbers of The People, together with his earlier
papers, The Evangelical Reformer, The Chnstian Investigator,
and The Christian, at threepence halfpenny per pound, and
even by the hundredweight, and although he claimed that he
was unable to enlarge the paper until the circulation increased,
and that it only just paid,*°*® there is no evidence that the
circulation was unsatisfactory. Indeed Robert Graham of
Seaton Delaval Colliery, Northumberland, who wrote to The
People on his reasons for leaving Methodism, in December
1849,°°° declared that he particularly wished his letter to appear
in it because of “‘The great circulation The People has in this
colltery.:”

The first advertisement of Barker’s intention to sell his
printing business at Wortley appeared in No. 130, and it was
made clear that he particularly wanted a buyer who would
carry on The People, ‘‘the principal matter’’ for it to be furn-
ished “‘on reasonable terms’’ by Barker himself. An attempt
by the friends of F. R. Lees,**® with whose ‘‘Temperance
Chartism’’ Barker had much in common, to buy the business
for him failed,*** and in No. 153 it was announced that George
Turner of Stoke-on-Trent would succeed Barker as owner of
the printing, publishing and bookselling business. Turner, who
later became Mayor of Stoke, applied for membership of the
Old Meeting House (Unitarian), Newcastle-under-Lyme, in
1855. His declaration of belief was typically Barkerite and
his application was rejected. It thus appears almost certain
that he was influenced by the Christian Brethren movement.**”

297 The life of Joseph Barker, written by himself. Edited by his nephew, John
Thomas Barker, 288.

208 People, Ili, No.: 156; II, No. 89. Reply to “J.W.’’; III, No. 129. Reply to
Joseph Fletcher.

299 Tbid., II, No. 87. Letter of 19 December.

210 For whom see J. F. C. Harrison, Social Reform in Victorian Leeds, 56, n. 28.

211 People, III, Nos. 133-4 (double number), 149.

212 ,. Beard, “Unitarianism in the Potteries from 1812’’, Transactions of the

Unitarian. Historical Society, 6 (1935-8), 25; ‘“‘Extract from Minute Book,
Unitarian Chapel, Newcastle-under-Lime [sic], Staffs.’’, ibid., 68-72.

JOSEPH BARKER AND “‘THE PEOPLE’”’ 3779

He may or may not have taken over the ownership of The
People. He did not become its editor. That place was filled by
William McCall, who had been Unitarian Minister at Crediton,
Devon, 1841-46, and clearly was not the owner.*'* But Turner
certainly continued in the Barker tradition, for he participated,
as co-editor and co-proprietor of the Stoke-on-Trent Narrative
of Current Events and Pottenes Advertiser, and printer and
publisher of the Weekly Visitor, in Collet Dobson Collet’s
struggle against the ‘‘taxes on knowledge,’’ which Barker had
supported as editor of The People,*** and he published and
printed Barker’s Seven Lectures on the Supernatural Onigin
and Divine Authority of the Bible in 1854.

With The People and the business at Wortley off his hands,
Joseph Barker was free to begin his life in America, and on
29 March 1851 he sailed from Liverpool, with a party of
fifteen, including his sons, Joseph and George, in the Royal
Mail Steamer Africa.**°

APPENDIX?***

Hexham, December 2nd 1849.
Dear Friend:

I trust these few lines will find you and yours in good health, I
rejoice that you have safely arrived in England, and been preserved
from all dangers by sea and by land. I left Shotley Bridge in March
last, to enter into partnership with my brother at Hexham, in the
painting and glazing business.

The influence of religious caste and sectarianism is so great and
tyrannical here, that I cannot remain much longer. The Hexham
Reformers exist now only in name. Some have joined the Sects, others
are quite careless about any reform, and only a very few, I fear, obey
the dictates of conscience, and act according to their information.
Hexham is a stronghold of orthodoxy, what is called ‘‘The Respect-
ables’’ being in favour of orthodox notions. I find that congeniality
of society and religious freedom cannot be obtained here. I have been
called Infidel, etc., and am looked upon as one bearing the impress
of the Divine Wrath, because I think for myself, and form my own
religious opinions. I have done what I could to advocate Religious
and Political Liberty, but to little purpose, my efforts for the public
good being considered in the same light as ‘‘Paul’s’’ at ‘‘Athens,”’
when his enemies declared that he was endeavouring “‘to turn the

213 G. E. Evans, Vestiges of Protestant Dissent (Liverpool, 1897); People, N.S.,
ne Noy 13.07 March 1352):

214C. D. Collet, History of the Taxes on Knowledge (London, 1899), I, 155-8;
People, III, 115-6 (double number).

215 People, N.S., I (10 May 1851).

216 People, UH, No. 85.

378 MISCELLANY

world upside down.’’ Since I was expelled from the Primitive Method-
ist Connexion four years ago, I have endeavoured to act faithfully
in disseminating religious and political truth among the people, and
to assist in pulling down the strongholds of False Orthodoxy and
Aristocracy. While doing so I have been deserted by many of my
former intimate friends. I have suffered in my temporal circumstances.
In this town I find, that if I must succeed in business, I must become
a hypocrite, and be everything or nothing by turns to suit employers.
This I cannot do. I must be free, I cannot be a slave. I joined the
Sects when an apprentice, and the Teetotal Society twelve years ago.
I did so, because I believed it to be my duty to be religious, and to
be a Teetotaller. It was not to please any one that I did so. I still
act on the Teetotal principle, and abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco,
and snuff.

Well, my friend, I have carefully read your American Journal in
THE PEOPLE, the result of which is, that I have made my mind up
to go to America, and there be free from priestly and aristocratic
tyranny. I intend, when I arrive there, to carry on my business of
painter, glazier, gilder, house, sign,. and furniture painter, .on my
own account. My wife has friends who are “‘well to do’’ in Buffalo
City, near Niagara Falls, but I would like to settle at Cuyahoga Falls,
or Akron. Do you think there would be an opening for one of my
trade there? I will feel thankful for an answer, as I am fully deter-
mined to leave for America next spring. My friend, J i Oe
E , intends to go soon. I would like to be able to mix in the society
of Reformers, and converse with them, when I go there. Had I been
able, I would have purchased land and become a farmer at once; as
it is, I intend to work at my own trade till I am able to do so. My
respects to your wife and family. I enclose postage stamp for reply,
which I shall consider an especial favour, and, in the meantime, I
remain, your friend and well-wisher,

ROBERT CARR.

I am grateful to Mr J. E. Tyler, M.a., of the Department
of History, the University of Sheffield, for suggesting many
improvements, and to the City Librarian and the staff of the
Reference Library, Leeds, for their kind helpfulness.

WILLIAM HODGSON’S BOOK

AMONG RECENT gifts to the Society’s Library is a manuscript
book compiled by William Hodgson, who worked as a coach-
smith in Leeds. It was presented to the Society through Mr E.
Rodway, by Mrs Joan Settle, of Leeds, daughter of the late
Mr L. E. Hodgson, among whose papers it was preserved.

The volume, a small folio of I00 pages, inscribed with
William Hodgson’s name and the title ‘‘A Memoranda (sic)
of various events. Commencing with Gleanings of My Dear
Father & Mothers ancestors and Relatives &c,’’ was appar-
ently written between the years 1869 and 1875, and the con-
tents fall into two parts.

The first section (pages 2-38) begins with notes on the family
of William’s father Benjamin Hodgson (born in 1783), farmers
and maltsters of East Keswick in the parish of Harewood, and
of his mother’s family of Crawshay of Horbury or Ossett.
Benjamin Hodgson was married in 1812 and his children were
born between 1813 and 1831. This account of the family is
followed by particulars of Benjamin Hodgson’s life, the early
part related in his 81st year to his son William.

Benjamin Hodgson was footman to Colonel Dixon of Gled-
how Hall for a time, then coachman to Colonel Hardy of
Bradford, whom he accompanied to Leeds when he came to
live at Denison Hall at the end of 1817; and in 1823 he became
coachman to Mr Hebblethwaite of Woodhouse Bar; William
was apprenticed in 1837 to the coachsmiths John Clark and
his son William. After leaving Denison Hall Lodge the family
went to Beech Grove, and later to Reuben Street; William’s
mother died in 1848 and his father married a widow, Mrs
Martha Wilson, in 1857, and died in 1864. Some of the family
are buried in Woodhouse Cemetery.

William Hodgson himself was married twice, first to Eliza-
beth Fearby, who died in 1852 at the age of 44, and secondly
to Mary (Polly) Hart. There are some notes on the Hart family,
who were Wesleyans.

The second part of the volume consists of a chronicle of
events, both family and public, beginning in October 1813
and continuing till July 1875; the earlier part was apparently
written in the present volume in 1869.

380 MISCELLANY

Public and national events are chronicled briefly, but there
are a good many personal and local sidelights as well, as for
instance that on the coronation of George IV, the pupils of the
Royal Lancasterian School where Hodgson was a scholar,
had a ““dinner of plum pudding and roast beef’’, or the brief
comment on the crowds when Princess Victoria and the
Duchess of Kent passed through Leeds on their way from
Harewood, ‘‘what a crush in Briggate’’; he records that after
the disastrous fire in York Minster in 1829, the ‘‘relics of the
fire were exhibited in Leeds’’; that on the occasion of the
meeting at York on the Ten Hours Bill on 24 April 1832,
“many walked from Leeds and back’’; and there is also an
account of a case of body-snatching, when the body was re-
covered from the top of the stage-coach en route for Carlisle.

Hodgson chronicles the deaths of such Leeds notabilities as
Sir Peter Fairbairn, and Stephen Nicholson of Roundhay Park;
he records the death on 21 January 1865 of James Sigston
formerly of Queen Square Academy and a member of the
Methodist Free Church. There is a good deal of Wesleyan
Methodist news — accounts of missionary meetings, Sunday
Schools and so on, and mention is made of some prominent
“‘Friends’’, notably Robert Jowett, on the site of whose house
and estate in Woodhouse Lane the new Friends’ Meeting
House was opened in February 1868.

The face of Leeds saw a good many changes during Hodg-
son’s lifetime, which he faithfully records — the transfer of
the Post Office from Albion Street, and of Queen Anne’s statue
from the top of Briggate, the removal of toll-bars from
Sheepscar and Harehills.

There are a few loose papers inserted in the volume, includ-
ing the Discharge (dated May 1813) of Benjamin Hodgson from
the rst Leeds Regiment of Local Militia, at the end of four
years’ service.

The book is an interesting addition to the Society’s collection

of manuscript material on Leeds and its past.

INDEX

The Index has been compiled by Mrs R. S. Mortimer, with consider-
able help from Miss A. M. Croft and the Hon. Librarian, Mrs G. C. F.
Forster, to whom we are most grateful.

*indicates that there is more than one mention on a page.

ABBOT and Smith, organ builders, 261
Adam, —, Unitarian minister, 372
Adams, John, 241

Ackroyd, Henry, 367

Addy & Nicolls, 287

Adel Beck, 29

— church, 6

Adelstone, D., 149, 163
Ailred:, St; 4

Airedale, 3

Akeroyd, —, 314

Akron, Ohio, 337, 339, 370

Akroyd, Col. Edward, 79, 80

Alpant Mime, 253, 221, 222, 224, 225,
226

Albert, Prince Consort, 288, 290, 295-7

Albion Phalanx of Associated
Emigrants, 359

Aldam, William, 108, 113

Alexander, abbot of Kirkstall, °3*, 22*

Alexander, William, M.D., 367

Alfred, duke of Edinburgh, 216

Alfred Place Terminating Building
Society, 303-30

Allanson, Ann (Wade), 27*

— Robert, 27

Allen, Hammond, 74*

——is7 Hush P., 236,237, 238, 230, 240;
BAI", 242, 243, 244, 240, 247

— Miss Perceval, 229, 231, 234, 235

Allerton, Lord, 145

Allin, Norman, 241*, 242, 244, 246, 248

Althorp, John Charles Spencer,
viscount, IO

American Anti-Slavery Society, 354

American footwear, I6I, 162

American Leather Trust, 155

Angus, Glennie, 258

Anthony, Trevor, 259, 262

Anti-Corn Law League, 107, III, I15

Anti-Slavery Standard (New York),
355.

Arbos, Enrique, 226

Arksey, 316

ArimMuley.n 120, 130, 135*,- 137, 314

Arrau, Claudio, 263

Arthington, John, 56, 57*, 58, 62

Ashley, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord
(7th earl of Shaftesbury), 97, 100-1,
107-9, II3-I5

Atack, Samuel, 283-7

Atkinson, J. W., 214

— John, junior, 93

Atkinson, Joseph, 62

— William, 109, III

Audus, James, 71, 73

Austhorpe Lodge, 62

Austin, Frederick, Pervigilium Veneris,
249

Austral, Florence, 242, 244°) 245, 246

Australia, emigration to, 349

Ayrey, John, 90, 95-6, 100, 105

B.B.C. Symphony Orchestra, 268, - 269

Bach, je Se, 200-1

— Cantatas: ‘‘Der Himmel lacht’’, 246;
“O Light Everlasting’, 241; Peasant
Cantata, selections, 246; ‘‘Since Christ

is all my being’’, 241; ‘“‘Sleepers,
wake’, 226, 251: “A stromehold
sure’’ (no. 80), 254-5; “Thou guide
Ob Istael~ (mo. TOA), sens 254;
“Watch ye, pray ye’’, 246

— Concertos: Brandenburg concerto

no. I, 254; Brandenburg concerto no.
3, 225, 263; Brandenburg concerto
no. 5, 246; Concerto in C major for
three pianos, 241; Concerto im C
major for two pianos, 246; Concerto
in D minor for two violins, 243, 240;
Concerto in F major, 241

— Chorale: ‘‘Jesu, joy of man’s desir-
ing’’, 250

— Christmas Oratorio, 223, 254

— Fantasia and Fugue in C minor, 240

— “God’s time is best’’, 221

— Magnificat im D, 213*, 241

— Mass in B minor, 201, 218, 222, 224,
231, 238, 244, 250, 259

—Motets: ‘‘Be not afraid’’, 246;
“Come, Jesu, come’’, 241; “Jesu,
priceless treasure’’, 237; ““Sing ye to
the Word” ..227,.234, 254; the Spit
helpeth us’’, 231

— “Now hath the
strength’’, 246

— Overture in C major for 2 oboes,
bassoon and string orchestra, 246

— Overture in D, 243

— St Matthew Passion, 201, 207, 234-5,
257

— Suite in C, 255

— Suite in C maior for ’cello, 243

Backhouse (Jonathan) & Co., Thirsk,
FO]

— Thomas. 76*

grace and _ the

382

Bagley, Thomas, 86

Bagley, Willans & Co., 86

Baildon, 123

Bailey, Thomas, 85

Baillie, Isobel, 255, 256*, 262

Baines, Edward, 87-8, 90-2, 94, 97, 99,
102-7, III-12, 118, 336

— Siy Edward, 104-5, II0-II, 302

—M. T., 283, 294, 298

Baines’s Directory, 84

Bairstow, Si Edward Ci, 232, 235, 247

Baker, Dr R., 279

— Robert, 197-8

Balfour, Margaret, 240, 241*, 242, 245

Ballantyne, James, 370

Balme, E. B. Wheatly, 80

— Matthew, 113-14

Bank Acts, 54, 55, 69, 733, TA91 Ts 80-1

Bank of Deposit, 79

Bank of England, 54, 50, 68, 78, 82, 84

Bank of Leeds, 82-3

Bank of Liverpool & Martins, 77, 78*

Banking, 54-86

Bantock, Siv Granville, Dante and
Beatrice, 238; Sea Wanderers, 231

Barbirolli, Sizvy John, 258, 262, 263*, 264

Barclays Bank, 78*

Bardgett, Herbert, 258, 263*, 267, 268

Barker,. B.,and “Son, 371-2

— Benjamin, 346

— — junior, 372 n

— George, 377

—— tom, (337 37°, 3/1

— Joseph, 331-78

— — junior, 377

— Samuel, 337, 339-40, 344, 370, 371*

“‘Barkerites’’, See Christian Brethren

Barnby, Siv Joseph, 211

— “The Lord is King’’, 218

Barnoldswick, 3, 4

Barnsley, 56*, 57

Barnsley Banking Co., 77

Barr, Robert, 289

Barran, John, 294 n

Barron, George, 306-7, 313, 316

Barrows, E., & Son, 147

Barry, Siv Charles, 279-81

Barstow, Thomas, 76

Bartok, Bela, Concerto for Orchestra,
266

Bates, Thorpe, 238*

Bath, Hubert, Wedding of Shon Mac-
lean, 234

Battye, IK. C.,, 63

Bax, Arnold, 242-3, 266

— Mater ora filium, 242, 248

— This Worldes Joie, 242

— Tintagel, 266

Baxter, Agnes, 18

Beaumont, Lottie, 246

— William, 347

Beckett, family, 25, 26, 31-4, 56-62

— Councillor, 297

— Christopher, 58, 60

INDEX

Beckett, Siv Edmund (Beckett-Denison),
4th bart., 31-2 58-9, 108, 294, 297-8
— Edmund (Beckett-Denison), rst baron
Grimthorpe, 32*, 33, 287

— Elizabeth (Wilson), 56

— Frances Adelina (Ingram), 31*

— Gervase, 56

— John, of Barnsley, 56

== Siy John, rst dart., 31, 56*, 57*, 58*,
60, 62

—- Si John, 2nd art: 31, 60,
105-6, I16-17

— Joseph, 56*

— Hon. Rupert E., 33, 60

— Siy Thomas, 37d bart., 31*, 58

— William, 26, 31, 56, 58, 59, 60, 96,
108-9, III-I2, 116, 336

— William, 2nd baron Grimthorfe, 33,

102-3,

34

— William (Beckett-Denison), 33, 59

— William Ernest, 33

— Hon. William Gervase, 33, 60

— & Co. (Beckett’s Bank), 31, 56-62,
TI2, 285

— & Co., East Riding Bank, 59*, 60

— Birks & Co., Barnsley, 57

— Blaydes & Co., 58

— Calverley & Co., 58

— Calverley & Lodge, 58

— Calverley, Lodge & Co., 58

Beckwith, John, 111, 114

Beckworth, Wm., 144*, 159

Bede, 10

Beecham, Siv Thomas, bart., 238, 245,
24O" ; 2A7, “2ZAS™, “2AOQ*.250" , 2aes aes ze
253" 25d, 255"; 250%) 257, 250,. 202.

Beecroft, E. B., 80

Beeston, 135

Beethoven, L. van,
Concertos: violin concerto in D, 238,
257; piano concerto ne. 4, 250, 2633"
piano concerto no. 5 (‘‘Emperor’’),
240

— Mass in C, 215

— Mass in D, 218, 223, 226, 229, 246,
256, 267

— Mount of Olives, 206, 207, 213

— Overtures: The Consecration of the
House, 268; Egmont, 233, 263; Leon-
ova NO. 2, 225; Leonora no. 3, 231%,
236

— Sonata in G (Op. 96), 267

— Symphonies: no. I, 266; no. 2, 217,
245; nO. 3, 234, 248-9; NO. 4, 229, 256;
no. 5, 2103 No. 6, 2685 DO. 71 236.4253.
268: mos 8:<222% NO: 10,1 215,216; 22n,
224, 229, 241, 244, 259

Behnes, William, 276, 205

Bemerton (Wilts.), parsonage, 25

Benedict, St, rule of, 2

Bennett, Joseph, 223

— Siy William Sterndale, 205*, 209, 235,
289; May Queen, 205, 207, 215;
Parisina, 226

INDEX

Bent, Arthur, 235

— Peter, 80

Bentley, Elizabeth, 93

— Henry, 68

Benton, Alfred, 222, 223

Benyon, Thomas, 30, 31

— Jane, 31

Berganza, Teresa, 269

Berkeley, Lennox, 256

Berlioz, Hector, Benvenuto Cellini
(overture), 238; Zhe Childhood of
Ghrist, 256; Faust, 220, 22%; Grand
Messe des Morts, 250-51; Te Deum,
247-8, 260

Bernard, St, abbot of Clairvaux, I, 2,
3, 4°

Best, Mark, 93

Beverley, banks, 59*, 60

Bickersteth, Robert, bp of Ripon, 294-5,
297

‘Bissben:?, 32

Bingley Training College, 34

Binns, Messys, of Bramley, 34

— John, 64*

— Stephen, 93

Birmingham, 300

— Music Festivals, 205, 211, 214

— police, 292

—St Philip’s Church (Cathedral), 204

—— hown Hall, 204, 217, .300

Birmingham and Midland Bank, 73, 74,
WS) ID

Birmingham District
Bank, 78

Birmingham, Dudley and District Bank-
ine Co., 82

Birstall, ro2

Bischoff, My, 29

— Thomas, 68

Bishop Thornton, 316

Bispham, David, 225

Black, Andrew, 222, 224, 225, 226, 229

Blackburn, John, 296

Blackburnshire, 3

Blakeys, 150

Blayd(e)s, family, 58

—— john, 58, 60, 62, 277

Blubberhouses, 129

and Counties

Boito, Arrigo, Mefistofele (prologue),
238
Bolton, 96

— Town Hall, 302

Booth, John, 367

Bootmakers, See Shoemakers and Boot-
makers

Ioots, 124", 134, 137; 136, 140/162

Borg, Kim, 267

Borodin, A. P., Prince Igor (dances),
245, 255

Boroughbridge, banks, 76

Borwick, Leonard, 225, 226

Boughton, Rutland, The
Tragedy, 230

— King Arthur, 230

Bouvier, Helen, 265*

Barkshire

383

Bower, John, the elder, 68

— Joshua, III-12

Bower, Hall & Co., 59*, 60

Boyce, Bruce, 265

Boyle, Humphrey, 185, 195-6, 199

Bradford, 88-9, 95, 97, 99-100, 104, 106,
130, 276

= banks, 74, 78,. 63

— choral societies, 264, 266

— police, 292

— worsted mills, 87

Bradford and Little Horton Emigration
Society, 351

Bradford Co-operative Emigration
Society, 363-7

Bradford District Bank, 83

Bradford Festival Choral Society, 266

Bradford Observer, 365

Bradford Old Bank, 78

Bradley, Emmanuel, 74

Bradshaw, Benjamin, 93

Brahms, Johannes, Alto Rhapsody, 224,
220, 243, 251-2, 203; “Concerto jor
Pianoforte, no. 2, 225, 255; Concerto
for Violin, 227, 262; Concerto for.
Violin and Violoncello, 247; Festival
and Commemoration Sentences, 250,
268; Nanie, 244; Pianoforte solos, 245;
Requiem, 220-I, 233, 246; Rinaldo,
220; Song of; Destiny, 222, 227 240;
Song of the Fates, 254; Four Female
part-songs, 247

— Symphonies: mo. I, 241, 250° mo, 2,
230, 2534203; MO, 3). 230-7.) 249,5tOs 4,
243, 257

— Vanations on a Theme by Haydn
(St Anthony Chorale), 256

Brainin, Norbert, 266

Bramble is, 14s

Bramley, 23, 135°, 13797 136. son

— Fall, 301

Brannigan, Owen, 265

Brearley, Henry, 229

Brema, Marie, 224, 225*, 226, 228", 220,
230

Brewer, A. Herbert, In Springtime, 229

Brickmakers, I9I, 314

Bridlington, 77

Brierley, Joseph, 98

Brighouse, III, II5

Bristol, 74

Britam «& Co. (Thirsk), 7x

British Association, Leeds meeting, 1858,
302

— Emigrants’ Mutual
340 nN, 359, 360, 362

— Protective Emigrant Society, 353

— Temperance Emigration Society, 352,
359) 302

Britten, Benjamin, Nocturne for Tenor
and Small Orchestra, 268; Serenade
for Tenor, Horn and Strings, 265;
Spring Symphony, 263; Vanations
and Fugue on a Theme of Purcell,
259-60

Aid Society,

384

Broadbent, E., 149

— Thomas, 57

Brodrick, Cuthbert, 204,
295, 299, 301-2

Bromley, Joseph, 366

Brook, David, 93

Brougham, Henry Peter, Lord, 298

Broughton, Alfred, 228", 221,222

— James, 212, 216, 218

— John, 340

Brown, George, 59

— Herbert, 231*, 232-3

— Samuel James, 65

— Rev. T., 113

— William James, 65*

— William Wells, 354

— William Williams, 64-5

Brown, Janson & Co., London, 65

Bruckner, Anton, Mass no. 2 in E
MINOY, 257

Brunskill, Muriel, 242, 244*, 245, 246*,
249, 250, 252

Brunt, Benjamin, 342

Buck, Anne, 28

— Catherine, 28

— Samuel, Recorder of Leeds, 28

— William, 28

Buckingham, James Silk, 338, 352

Buckingham and Chandos, Richard
Grenville, 2nd duke of, 109

Building, 165-99, 275-302, 303-30

Bull, Rev. George Stringer, 95, 97, 102,
104-5, 108

— (Ball? or Bell?), Thomas, 360

Bulmer, Dy George, I12-13

Burden, John, 265

Burkill, Isaac, 75

Burland, Mrs, 352

Burley, 135, 138

Burlington Bank, 77*

Burns, Charles, 93

Burton, Jobn,-71

— Robert Senior, 206, 209-10, 212, 288-9

Busch, Adolf, 257

Buslingthorpe, 145

Busoni, F., Pianoforte Concerto, Op.
39), 250

Bussey, Peter, 347, 353 1

Butt, Dame Clara, 224,232", 234

Butterworth, George, A Shropshire
NEGO 237)

Byland Abbey, 6

Bywater, Ann, 305

— David, 93

— John Rainforth, 85

Bywater, Charlesworth & Co., 85

280-1, 283-7,

CALVERLEY, Anne (Wade), 26

— John (afterwards Blaydes), 58*, 60
— John, junior, 62

— Walter, 26

Calverley, 87, I0o

— Wood, 301

Cambridge University, 8

Cameron, John, 265, 266

INDEX

Camidge, Dy John, 202

— Matthew, 202

Canada, emigration to, 342, 349

Carlton Cross, coal-mine, 17*

Carpenter, James, 93

Carr, Robert, 374, 377-8

Carreno, Teresa, 237

Carter, Kv Ni 204 %

Cash, Newman, 71

Catley, Gwen, 262

Cawood, John, 111-12

Cellier, Alfred, Gray’s Elegy, 217

Celtic monasteries, 3

Central Bank of London, 75-6

Chabrier, A. E., Espana, 262

Chadwick, William, 316, 324

Chantrell; 3k. D., 8*

Chapeltown, 135

Chapman, William, 345

Charing Cross Bank, 83

Charlesworth, Edward, 85

Charpentier, Marc. Antoine, Te Deum,
209

Chartism, Chartists, 106-9, 11%, 313, 117;
336, 346, 353, 354, 364, 369 ”, 375, 376

Cheater, W., 140

Chenubinr yevi e eCeelecs
Journées, 226

— Mass in D minor, 249

Chopin, F. F., Concerto in E minor,
223

Choral singing, 200-70 passim

Christian (The), 332-4, 335, 376

Christian Brethren, 331, 332, 334, 341,
343, 349, 361, 374, 376

Christian Investigator, 376

“Christians of America’’, 334

Cistercian monasteries, 2-6

City Bam, 76

Clapham, John, 73*

— Samuel, o3

Clark, John, 348

Clarke, Kev. J., 153

Cleaver, Edward, 62*, 63*

Cliff, Joseph, 75

Cliffe, Frederic, 218, 222

— Elizabeth, 23*

— Joana, 23°, 24

—= Thomas, of Skircoat; .23

Clinton, Gordon, 265

Coal-mines, 17*, 18*

Coates, Albert, 240*, 241*, 242*, 243-4;
245; The Eagle, 244

= Jcbn,2267) 228", 236"; 237} 230". 240;
241

Coates, Meek & Carter, Knaresborough,

Deux

72.
Cockerell, C. R., 302
Coleridge-Taylor, Samuel,

Girl of Castel-Cuillé, 225
Collet, Collet Dobson, 377
Collins, Anthony, 249
Colne Valley Male Voice Choir, 264, 265
Colonies, emigration to, 348-9
Committee of Pious Uses, 179

The Blind

INDEX

Committee on the Bill to Regulate the
Labour of Children, 93-4, 96-8

Conyers, W. H.; 135, 136, 144, 145

Cook, Rev. Alexander, 28

— Catherine (Buck), 28

—— Melville, 265, 266*

Cooke, Arnold, 264

Cooke, Yarborough & Co., Doncaster, 59

Cookridge, 23

Cooper, Ernest, 258

— John Whitaker, 65

— William, 93

Corder, Frederick, Sword of Argantyr,
22%

Cornelius, Peter, Love I give myself
to Thee, 238; To the Starm Wind,
238; Vdtergruft, 231

Cortot, Alfred, 240*

Costa, Siv Michael, 205, 211*, 213*, 214*

Cottages (Leeds), 145, 179

Coulson, Thomas, 75

Cousins, John James, 74*, 75

Cousins, Allen & Co., 74

Cover, Susan, 233

Coward, Siv Henry, 224 n, 239

Cowell, —, 321-2

Cowen, Siy Frederick, The Passions, 224

Cox, Arthur, 255

Crabtree, Mark, 105, 108

Crace, John, 300

Cranmer, Thomas, archbp., 23

— Thomas, the younger, 23

Crawshaw, George, 305

Crawshay, family, 379

Creser, Dry William, The Sacrifice of
Freia, 221

Crimean War, 285-6

Croft, Harry, 276

— Dy Octavius; 33

Cross, Joan, 255, 263

Crossley, Ada, 224,225, 226,° 2317. 235

Crowder, John, 67

Crowder, Perfect & Co., 67

Crown, Pleas of the, 14

Crowther, —, 367

—G. J., 290

Cumberland Union Banking Co., 77

Curlers, 123", 124 125. 12750 36%.) 130",
£40; £42, TAA, THO, TSI, 154

Curzon, Clifiord, 265*

DALBERG, Frederick, 265, 266

Dargaivel, Bruce; 262, 265

Darley Dale, 285-6, 301

Darlington District Joint Stock Bank-
1s COe77,

Davies, si itramegon, (2277 6225, 220,-230*
—Si Henry Walford, 233-4, 235;
Everyman, 228
Dawis, “Ben, 2225 22422225" , 2260, 220",

230%
Davy, Siv Humphry, 132
Dawson, John, 93
— Thomais;' 74
— William, 200

385

Deartone, Ralph, 29

Debussy, Claude, The Blessed Damozel,
234, 240; Cortége and Air de Danse,
202; Three Nocturnes, 263

Delavan, Edward C., 338

Delius, Frederick, Appalachia, 241;
Arabesque, 253; Dance Rhapsody,
262; A Mass of Life, 249, 265-6; Paris,
255; Pianoforte Concerto, 260; Sea
Drift, 245; The Song of the High
Hills, 244; Songs of Sunset, 254

Demagogue, The, 103

Democratic Co-operative Society, 359-60

Denison, Edmund Beckett, See Beckett

ao ed 282

— William, 26

—- William Beckett, See Beckett

Dent. Es ja. 22

Derby, Edward George Stanley, earl of,
109, 204

Derham, Robert, 68

Desmond, Astra, 240, 251-2, 256, 257

Dewsbury, 130

Dickinson, J. IN... 289

Dilimiohame, I. .233

District Bank, 83-4

— Savings Bank, 85

Dixon, J... 155

Dobson, John, 268

Dod, john, 337

Doherty, John, 95

Domesday Book, 10, 12-13

Donaldson, James, 284-5, 287

Douglass, Frederick, 333-4, 354

Downe, Jonathan, 93

— Samuel, 93

Drake, Joshua, 93

Dresser, Henry, 73*

— Joseph, 73

Dresser & Co. (Thirsk), 71; 73

Driffield, banks, 60, 77

Drinkwater, John Elliott, 98-9

Dundee, 97

Durham, Castle, 300

Dvorak, Antonin, Carnival (overture),
226; Concerto for Violoncello, 260; In
Der Natur, 233; St Ludmilla, 218;
Slavonic Rhapsody no. 3, 262; The
Spectre’s Bride, 222; Stabat Mater,
222 oD 2

Dyson, Si George,
253-4

EAMONSON, William, junior, 62*

East Morley and Bradford Savings
Bank, 365

East Riding Bank, 59-60

Easton, Robert, 256, 257*

Eddison, Edwin, 276

Edmund, George, 371

Education Act, 1891, 81

Edward VII, king, 220

Edwards, Matthew, 71

Eight Hours Movement, 102

Eisdell, Hubert, 250, 252

The Blacksmiths,

386 INDEX

Elgar, Siy Edward, 236, 240; The Fitzwilliam, William Thomas Spencer
Apostles, 265; Cavactacus, 224"; Wentworth Fitzwilliam, 6th earl, 294
Dream of Gerontius, 236, 263-4; Fixby, 87
Enigma Variations, 226, 234, 253; Flaxman, John, 28

Falstaff, ‘238; 257, 208; Go Song of
Mine, 233; In the South (concert over-
ture), 227; Introduction and Allegro
for Strings, 245; The Kingdom, 230;
National Anthem, 240, 242, 248, 253,
256, 258, 2602; Sea Pictures, 234, 245;
Symphony no. 2, 258; Violin Concerto,
241; Violoncello Concerto, 249

Elizabeth II, queen, 267-9

Ellis, Geoffrey, 59

— John and Joseph (Railsford Factory),

149
Elman, Mischa, 238
Elson, Robert, 343
Elsworth, W., 366
Elwes, Gervase, 228, 229, 230, 231, 235*,
238, 239
Embleton, Henry C., 224 n, 239
“Emigrant Letters’’, 337, 340, 342-6
Emigrant Ships, 350
Emigration, 331-78
— Societies, 358-67, 369-70
Enesco, Georges, Sonata no.
minor, 267-8
Equitable Bank, 78
Evangelical Reformer, 376
Evans, Geriant, 269
— William, 360-1
Exchange and Discount Bank, 73-5
Exley, George, 86

3 in aA

FACTORY Act, 1833, 101, 103-6

— Reform Movement, 87-118

— Reformation Societies, 102

— Schools, r1o

Fairbairn, Siy Peter, 112, 204, 208-9, 289,
291-2, 294-6, 336, 380

Falkner, Keith, 246*, 247, 248, 249, 250,
D5, 2535255", 250, 257

Farnley, 135

— Butterbowl Mill, 371

Farrar, Williamson & Co. (Ripon), 76*

Farrow’s Bank, 83

Farsley, 100

Fauré, Gabriel, Requiem, 259

Fawcett, Rev. James, 93

— Rev. Richard, 91, 93

Fearby, Elizabeth, 379

Fellmongers, 125

Fenton, Betty, 187

— Samuel, 29

— William, 63

Ferrand, William Busfield, 109-12, 114-16

Ferrier, Kathleen, 259, 262, 263*, 264

ans, Jee, Is) acs

Field, Joshua, 62*, 63*

Field, Greenwood & Co., 63

Fielden, John, 115-16

Finley, Nicholas, 316

Fischer, Annie, 269

Fleming, G. A., 108

Fletcher, Stubbs & Scott (Borough-
bridge), 76
Flitch, J. J.) 145, 157, 258”, 159

Fogg, Eric, The Seasons, 249

Food, Cost of, 195-6, I99

Foreign Affairs Committee, 353
Foster, John, 88, 90-1, 93, 97, 99-102
— Muriel, 226, 228,220", 236%, 233*
Foundling Hospital, 201

Fountains Abbey, 3*, 4, 6*
Fourierists, 359

Fournier, Pierre, 260

Fowler, Orson Squire, 369

Fox, Joseph, 343-4

Foxcroft family, 23-4, 25

— Daniel, 25

— Elizabeth (afterwards Harrison), 23*,

24

— Elizabeth (Woodhead), 23

— George, 23*, 24

— Isacke, 23, 24*

— James (of Kebroyd), 23

— James (of New Grange), 23, 24

— Joana (Cliffe), 23*, 24

— fohn, 23

— Judith (afterwards Wade), 23, 24*

— Richard, 23, 24

— Sara (afterwards Wade), 23, 24

— Thomas (of Kebroyd), 23

— Thomas (of New Grange), 23*, 24*

— Thomas (junior, of New Grange), 23,
24

Francis, —, joiner, 314-15

Franck, César, 240

Frankland & Wilkinson (Whitby), 76

Fraser, James, 221-2

Fricker, Herbert Austin, 226, 227-8, 231,
233, 234, 230

— Peter Racine, The Vision of Judge-
ment, 268

Frise-Smith, Kathleen, 246

Furmedge, Edith, 253

Furriers, 125

GADE, Niels, 218

Gadsden, James, 71

Garrison, William Lloyd, 333, 334, 354*
Garth, Samuel, 340

Gay; Sx HH, 354-5, 373

Geldart, Dy, of Wetherby, 316
George, Thomas Willington, 75
German, Siv Edward, Richard III, 222
— Romeo and Juliet, 226

— Suite in D minor, 223

Gibson, My. 327

— Henry, Temptation, 247

Gilling, William, 373

Gladstone, William Ewart, 109
Glasgow, 96

INDEX

Glazounov, A. C., Memorial Cantata,
226

— Symphony no. 8, 231

Gledhow, 31

Gleeson-White, Miss, 226, 228, 233

Goderich, Frederick John Robinson,
viscount, 294, 297-8

Goodman, George, 106, III

Goodyear Welting Plant, 163

Goole, 75

Gorstville, Wis., 352

Gott, Benjamin, 29, 118

Gounod, Charles F., 211*

— The Redemption, 211

— Romeo and Juliet, 226

Graham, James, 35

— Siv James, bart, 108-10, 112-14

— Robert, 376

Grainger, Percy, 231

Grauhan, &. W., 202

Gray, Dr Alan, Avethusa, 222; A Song
of Redemption, 224; ‘‘What are these
that glow from afar?’’ (anthem), 222

— Joan, 266

Gray and Davison, London, 301

Grayson, Thomas, 294 n

Great Northern Railway Company, 201,
294, 297

Greeley, Horace, 356

Green, James, II2

— William, 229, 232*

Greene, Eric, 259

— Plunket, 222, 224, 226*, 227, 228*, 220,
230", 231, 232, 2347, 235

Greenland, E., 59, 71

Greenwood, W., bookseller, 365, 366*

— William, 63

Greig, James, 65

Grieg, Edvard, 231; Concerto for Piano-
forte in A minor, 230, 231; Peer
Gynt suite no. 1, 230; Olav Tryg-
vason (scenes), 230; Songs, 231

Grimshaw, Enid, 232

Grimthorpe, Edmund Beckett-Denison,
FSU OAVON, 322°, -33. 287

— William Beckett, 2nd baron, 33, 34

‘““Grimthorpe escapement’’, 32*

HAAN-MANIFARGES, Mme
237,235

Haden, Messrs, of Trowbridge, 287

Haley, Olga, 254

Haleys, 147

Haliiax, 23, 24%, 30%. 83> arr

— Crowther’s Temperance Hotel, 367

— King Cross; 24

— Quickstavers, 24

Halifax and Huddersfield Union Bank-
ing Co., 66

Halifax Commercial Banking Co., 78

Halifax Emigration Society, 367

Halifax Equitable Bank, 78

Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co., 66

Hall, Ernest, 245

— Henry, 116

P. de,

387

Hall, James, 59

— John, 100, 102, 104, 108, I12
— Robert, 93, 96, 116-17
Hallam, Mrs, 371

Hallé, Siv Charles, 211, 214*
Hallé Orchestra, 238, 258, 259, 262, 263*
Halliday, John, 149, 150, 163
Hallsteads (Cumberland), 29
Hamilton, Jean, 257

— Richard Winter, 91
Hammond, George, 73

— John, 89

Handel, Georg Friedrich, 211, 217-18;
Acis and Galatea, 203, 221; Alexan-
dey’s Feast, 224; Anthem “O Sing

unto the Lord’’, 203; Chandos Anthem
no. 5, 255; Chandos Anthem no. 6,
229; Coronation Anthem ‘‘Zadok the
Priest’’, 203, 262; Dettingen Te Deum,

201, 203, 250; 2035 - isiver, 203;
Funeral Anthem, 203; Glona Patri,
203: Israel in ERVPE “201, 202,203,

207, 211, 218, 220, 242, 253, 200; Judas
Maccabaeus, 203; Messiah, 201, 203*,
207, 211, 212, 22340225, 245, "Cae On
St Cecilia’s Day, 233, 234, 245-6;
Samson, 203, 215*, 268; Saul, 201, 203;
Solomon, 213, 243, 244, 248; Tamer-
lane (overture), 203; Utrecht Jubilate,
216

Hannam, John, 91, 93-4, 96

Hanson, Howard, Lux Aeterna, 244

Hanson, John, 22

Hardcastle, Christopher, 67*

Harding, Stephen, 2

Harding & Co. (Burlington Bank), 77

Hardwicke, Charles Philip Yorke, earl
of, 294 |

Harewood, George Henry Hubert Las-
celles, 6th earl of, 269

Hargrave, Eldin, 93

Hargraves, Alonzo, 93

Harney, Julian, 113

Harris, Alfred, 78

— Charles, 78

Harrison, Beatrice, 247

— Elizabeth (Foxcroft), 23*

— John, 23, 25

— John, of Armley, 340

— May, 247

— Thomas, 65*

Hart, family, 379

— Mary (Polly), 379

Hartley, Raymond, 242

Harty, Siv Hamilton, 238*

Harwood, Basil, Song on a May Morn-
WWE, 237

Hassall, R., 334

Hattersley, F. Kilvington, 219

Hausmann, Robert, 247

Hawksworth, —, printer, 325-7

Havdn, Franz Toseph, Creation, 223;
Concerto for Violoncello in D, 242;
Seasons, 207, 247; Symphony no. 88,

I

388

263; Symphony no. 97, 255

Head, Siv George, 104

Headingley, 22* 23, 28, 99, 114, 129, 130,
135) E37: 307

— Alma Road, 299 n

— Headingley Church, 25-6, 31, 32

— Headingley House, 29

— Headingley Lodge, 30

— Far Headingley, 299

— St Chad’s Church, 32, 33, 254

— West Headingley, 22, 23

Heap, George, 292

Heaps, George, 307-8, 313-15, 324-5

Heath, Charles, 360

Heaton, J. D., 275-6, 278-82

Hebden, William, 93

Heming, Percy, 241, 248, 255

Hemingway, William, 63

Henderson, Roy, 253*, 254, 256*, 257

Hepper, W. E., 277, 279, 281 n, 283, 296

Hepworth, W., 158

Herbert, George, 25

— William, 265

Hermits, at Kirkstall, 3

Hernaman, John, 91, 93

Hess, Dame Myra, 244, 245*, 257

Hesse, Dorothy, 241, 246*, 250

Hessle Grange, 71

““Hesylwell’’, 23

Hetherington, Henry, 102

Hey, William, 91, 200

Heyner, Herbert, 242, 243*

Heyworth, Lawrence, 352*

Hades; 122")+ 227, °120,.135-
42, 143°, 144", 145, 1600

Hill, Ronald, 260

— William (architect), 302

— William (weaver, of Barnsley), 105,
107,111

Hindley, Charles, 105

Hirst, William, 92-3

Hitch, Robert, 25

Hobhouse, John Cam (Baron Broughton
de Gyfford), 88-90

Hobson, Joshua, 104, 106-15, 117

— Dy Richard, 277

Hodgson, William, 379-80

— Benjamin, 379*

Holbeck, 117, 135, 137, 138

— Mechanics’ Institute, 291

— Water Lane Mill, 29

Holbrooke, Josef, Queen Mab, 228

Holden, Siv Edward H., bart., 76, 81

Holland, George Calvert, 108

Holmes (John) & Co., 85-6

Holst, Gustav, Choral Symphony, 243;
Hymn of Jesus, 263; The Planets,
240; Poem of Death, 241

Holyoake, George Jacob, 353, 358

Home Workshops, 138

Honegger, Arthur, King David, 263

Hook, Walter Farquhar, dean of
Chichester, 7, 8, II, I10-13, 115-16,
208, 283, 296, 298

Horenstein, Jascha, 267

732°"; E40;

INDEX

Horner, Benjamin, 76

Hornsby, James, 352

Horsforth, 123, 128, 129

Horton, —, 120

Hotham, My, 67

Housing (Leeds), 165-99, 303-30

Houston, Eleanor, 266

Howard, John, 68, 73*

Howe, Janet, 260

Howorth, Rev. Franklin, 332

Huddersfield, 88-90, 99, 104, 106, III-12,
TE?

— banks, 66, 82

Huddersfield Banking Co., 85

Huddersfield Choral Society, 264, 265,
266

Hudson, Robert, 68

Hugh de Kirkstall, 22

Hull, 282

— banking, 74

— Holy Trinity Church, 8

Hull Literary and _ Philosophical

Society, 280

Hull Literary Society, 280

Hume, Joseph, 108

Humperdinck, Englebert,
Rhapsody, 224

Hunslet, 129, 130, 135, 137, 138

— Farrar House, 86

— National School, 112

— Woodhouse Hill, 86

Hunt, Donald, 267

— Henry, 90

Huntington Hall, 71

Hurst, Roger, 75

Hutton, John, 111, 115

Hyde, George, 59*

— Walter, 233, 234, 235, 242, 244, 246,
248

Hydes, John, 86

Hydes, Bagley & Co., 86

IKIN, J. A., 290, 296

Ilkley, Middleton Lodge, 327

Illinois, 348, 370

Ince, Thomas, 367

Inchbold, Thomas, 93

Indiana, 366, 348

Ingram, Frances Adelina, 31

Iowa, 348, 369

Ireland, John, These Things shall be,
258

Trish Emigrants, 368

Tronside, Isaac, 353-4

Irwin, Edward, 75

Isaac, Rev. Daniel, 93

JACKSON, John, 111-12

— William, 145, 148, 159, I61
Jackson & Bassford, 163

Jameson, —, 6

Janacek, Leos, Glagolitic Mass, 266
Janson, Edward, 65

— Ernest Tozer, 65

— Joseph, 65

Moorish

INDEX

Jarred, Mary, 253, 254, 256

Jebb, Dy John, 8

Jenkins, —, 327-8

Joachim, Joseph, 226, 227, 247; Elegiac
Overture, 230; Marfa, 225

Jocelyn, Robert Jocelyn, viscount, 108

John, Master of the Schools, Leeds, 18

Johnson, Herbert, 241

— James, 260

Joint Stock Banking Co., 75

Jones, Parry, 246, 247*, 256, 257, 258,
259"

— Trevor, 262

Jowett, Benjamin, 108

— Robert, 380

Jowitt, John, 288

Jubb, Robert, 62

KEBROYD, 23

Keighley, 111

Kellet, Thomas P., 370

Kendall, Richard, 187

— Robert, 123

Kentner, Louis, 256

Kepstorn (Capstone), 23, 26

Killingbeck, Beatrix, See Wade

— Benjamin, 26

Kinder, Alderman Fred, 35

Kaps, 432", r44*, 153

Kirk, George Edward,
271-3

— James, 93

— Joseph, 305 [?], 325-8

— Wheatley, 327

Kirk Deighton, 316

Kirkby, Thomas, 68

Kirkstall, 123, 129, 130, 307

— Abbey, I-7; 22*, 23", 30

— Bar Grange, 22, 23*

— Burley Grange, 22

— Forge, 30

— manor of, 23

— Moor Grange, 22*

obituary of,

—New Grange (Kirkstall Grange),
22-35
— Oxe More, 23

— St Stephen’s Church, 33
Kitchen, Edward, 145, 158, 159
Kitson, Alderman James, 205, 289
— Siv James, 73

Klemperer, Otto, 267
Knaresborough, 72, 316
Knowles, Charles, 228, 229
Knyvett, Mr, 202

Kreisler, Fritz, 227, 228

Krips, Joseph, 265*

Kubelik, Rafael, 268

LABETTE, Dora, 246*, 247, 248, 249,
253

Lacy, Henry de, 3

— Ilbert de, 3

— Roger de, 13

Lancashire, factory reform movement,
LOZ, 1rd, T16

389

Lancashire and Yorkshire Bank, 77
Lancaster, George R., 59
— Thomas, earl of, 16
Land Policy (U.S.A.), 355-6
— Tax, 356
Lascelles, Hon. Edwin, 80
Lawrence, H. M., 221
Lawson, —, of Pudsey, 340
Laycock, Thomas, 76
Leach, James, 354
Leadenhall’s Leather Prices, 129
Leather: chamois, 144; chrome, 157,
162; fancy coloured, 144; glacé, 144;
heavy, 133, 134, 155; hemlock tanned,
147, 153, Indian, 153; light, 134, 153;
medium, 153; patent, 134
— Fairs, 133*, I5I, 154, 160
— Industry in Leeds, 119-64
— Trade: capital, 131, I4I, 142, 144;
contraction, 152; exports and imports,
I21I, 122; local resources, 120; number
of firms, 140; numbers employed, 1109,
120, 122", 124, 128, 130, 135, 136, 130",
140*, 145; Output, I21
Leather and Rubber Boot Company, 162
Leeds:
Albion Street, 68, 69*, 71, 76, 77, 78*,
79, 82*, 83, 84, 86, 203, 288
Alfred Place, 303-30
Assembly Rooms (Old), 202*
— (New), 203
Back of Shambles, 123
“‘The Bank’’, 187
Bank House, Briggate, 57
Bank of Leeds, 82-3
Bank Street, 62, 63, 68, 84*, 85
Banks & Banking, 54-86
Basinghall Street, 77
Beckett Park Training College, 34-5
Blenheim Baptist Church, 299
Boar Lane, 62, 63, 68, 83, 86
Bond Street, 85*, 170 n, 305
Boot and Shoe Yard, 168, 169*, 170,
175, 180, 184, 185, 279
Borough, 12-20
Brick Close, 306, 308, 325
Briggate, 10, 15, 20, 32, 57*, 62, 63,
64, 67, 85, 86, 131, 169*, 179°", 279
Burmantofts, 15
Brunswick Place, 67
Burley House, 59
Butts Lane, 305
Camp Road, 306-7, 323, 329
Census, 174-7
—— (1831): 124, 128, 130 ”, 134
— (1851): 136
— (1911): 161
Central Station, 294
Chamber of Commerce, 288, 291
Choral Societies, 200-70 passim
Church Institute, 80
Churchwood, 34
City Square, 66
Cloth Halls, 91, 288, 290*, 298
Coburg Street, 305

a9

Leeds: .

Coliseum, 219-20

Commercial Court, 64, 67*

— Street, 65*, 79, 82, 85*

Corn Exchange, 160, 299

Corporation, 61

Council: Art Gallery Committee, 289;
Education Committee, 33-5; Festival
Committee, See Musical Festivals;
Mayors, 60, 63, 66, 204, 208-9, 210;
Statistical Committee, 304; Town
Clerk, 64; Town Hall Committee,

277, 279-81, 293; Town Hall Build-

ing Sub-Committee, 281, 285-6;
Watch Committee, 162, 291-2
Court House, 88, 105-7, I12
Denison Hall, 379
East Parade, 73, 77, 80, 81, 83
Ebenezer Chapel, 292
Elections, 89-90, 94-6, 103, 106, 108
Exhibition of Local Industry, 288, 298
Pairs, 17"
— Leather, 133%, I5I, 154, 160
— Saddlers’,134
Fire Office, 61-2
Flour and Provision Society, 291
Forge, 17*.
Friendly Societies, 283, 290-I, 293
Friends’ Meeting House, 380
Gott’s Mill, 290
Grammar School, choir, 256, 257
The Grange, See Kirkstall,. New
Grange
Guardians of the Poor, 283
Guildford Street, 308
Hanover Square, 85, 177 n
Harewood Barracks, 34
Harper Street, 145
Headrow, 83, 169*, 180, 307
— Upper Headrow, 179 n
Hope Villa, 59
Hospitals, 223, 226, 236, 245, 248, 260
Fever Hospital, 216
General Infirmary, 91, 96, 200*, 201,
202, 203", 207, 208, 200, '212,.-214,
216, 218, 210, 222, 288; “205
Hospital for Women and Children,
OID. 2V4,) 210," 21S; 219; 221, 222
House of Recovery, 212, 214, 222
Pensions Hospital, Chapeltown, 35
Public Dispensary, 212, 214, 216,
218, 219, 22%, (222
2nd Northern General Hospital, 35
Housing, 165-99, 303-30
Infirmary Street, 81, 200
Inns: Angel, 97; Commercial Hotel,
109; Fleece, 112; Fleischmann’s
Hotel, 209, 290; Golden Lion, 307;
Green Dragon, 308, 311; Rose and
Crown, 129; Union, 80, 91, 93, 100;
White Hart, 57; White Swan, 113
Insurance, 61-2
King Street Warehouses, 299
Kirkgate, 114, 169*,, 170*, 180,. 186*,
187*, 202*, 305

INDEX

Leeds:

Labour Unions, 150

Lady Lane, 150

Lands Lane, 305 .

Leather Industry, 119-64

Leeds and County Bank, 73, 75*

Leeds and Great Northern Railway,
291, 294, 297

Leeds and Liverpool Canal, 189

Leeds and Pontefract Bank, 67

Leeds and West Riding Joint Stock
Banking Co., 85

Leeds Anti-Slavery Society, 291

Leeds Banking Company, 59*, 68-71,
82*

Leeds Borough Bank, 86

Leeds Choral Society, 209-10

Leeds Choral Union, 224 n, 239, 257

Leeds Club, 299

Leeds Commercial Joint Stock Bank,
85

Leeds Conservative Journal, 109

Leeds Early Closing Association, 291

Leeds Evening Express, 61

Leeds General Committee .. . for
Restricting the Hours of Juvenile
Eabour, &¢.; 03

Leeds Illustrated, 65

Leeds Improvement Society, 278

Leeds Institute, 34, 299

Leeds Intelligencer, 88, 92, 94, IOI,
104-5, 107-9, II2, 206

Leeds Joint Stock Bank, 82, 83*

Leeds Madrigal and Motet Society,
209-10, 283

Leeds Mercantile Bank, 85-6

Leeds Mercury, 61, 62, 66, 67, 74, 82,
o7, 92, 95-6, Ioo, 103, I15, 289, 295-6,
298

Leeds New Bank, 62-3

Leeds Patriot, 88-9, 92, 94, 100

Leeds Philharmonic Society, 215, 217,
220, 227, 232, 235-0, 243%, 52575. 204,
205

Leeds Philosophical and _ Literary
Society, 29, 281, 283, 287

Leeds Redemption Society, 358

Leeds Reformation Society, 102

Leeds, Skyrac & Morley Savings
Bank, 84-5

Leeds Symphony Orchestra, 227

Leeds Times, 100, 104, 107, I1I3, 349,
362

Leeds Working Men’s Association, 106

Leeds Worthies, 65

Little London, 306

Manor, 13-20, 25

Maps: Sanitary map, 1842, 304

Markets, 16, 17,::18)-123, 3275 132 #2;

133, 134, 137, 154: 260

Marsh Lane, 179 n, 305

Mayors, See Council

Mechanics’ Institute, 29, 283, 292, 298

Middle Row, 131, 305

Mill Hill, 188, 189

INDEX 391
Leeds: Leeds:
Mill Hill Chapel, 276 Woodhouse: Cemetery, 379; Moor,

Malls 235 G6. 17" .7 1S

Moorland Terrace, 299 n

Music Hall, 112-6, 203, 204, 288

Musical Festivals, 200-70, 288-90

Newspapers, See under their names,
as Leeds Mercury, &c.

Old Bank Yard, 57

Oriental Baths, Cookridge Street, 299

IPaciSh2223)

Panich Churce, 7-12, 24°, 3t- 117, 204%

@holt 220, 232, 241, 248",. 250-7,
2005 Oreanists. 200, “212, 221, 222,
D2 7EO. 232)1, 240,, 2A2, “207, 288"
Registers, 23, 24; Special Services,
242, 264

Park Cross Street, 80

Park House, 277

Park Lane, 58

Paticn ROW) OF 007 6674" 1 75577

Yona OS Gedy 2304

— Back of Park Row, 77

Park Square, 64, 67, 83

People’s Festival Concerts, 211-2, 213,
2151215, 210

Philosophical Hall, 215

Police, 292

Population, 13I, I71I-7

Rate Book, 1774, 304

Regent Street, 181

Regiments: ist Leeds Regiment of
Local Militia, 380

Roundhay Road, 307

St Ann’s Hill, 34

St Peter’s Square, 63

School of Art, 2091

School of Music, 34*

Schools, 18, 34*

Sewage, 182-3

Shambles, 168

Sheepscar, 172 n

Sheepshanks Mill, Kirkstall Rd., 372

Skinner Lane, 80

South Parade, 68

Stock Exchange, 291

Sunday Schools, 290, 292, 295

Tenter Grounds, 172

Timble Bridge, 174 n

Town Hall, 27, 200; 204-5; 210, 212,
QO 221-2, 267, 275-302; Organ, 206,
ZO, 257, 224, 258, 260-1, 285,301;
Victoria Hall, 204, 210, 299-301

Trinity Church, 203*

Upper Headrow, 179 n, 308

Wicar Wane, 63, 168, 1160",
179 N, 304

Virginia Street, 150

Wands, 170", 172°, £73-4, 1777, 178",
180, 183, 186, 187, 375

Warehouse Hill, 305

Water Supply, 167, 169, 182-3

West Bar, 71

Wood Street, 168

173 Nn,

283, 290, 295; Quarries, 312
Woodhouse Lane, 145, 307, 380
Woodsley Hall, 209, 290, 294
Wrangthorn Terrace, 85
York Street, 185
Yorkshire College, 158

Leeman, George, 72

Lees, F. R., 376

— Joseph, 112

Leese (ov Lees), Joseph, 345

Leighton, Kenneth, Concerto for Violon-
cello, 269

Leiken, Herzyl, 243

Leopold, Prince, duke of Albany, 219

Lett, Phillis, 239

Lewis, Geoffrey, 265

— Richard, 263, 264, 265, 266*

Lewis's Bank Ltd., 83

— (Leeds) Ltd., 83

Liberals, 88, 108

The Liberator, 354*

Liddle, Sam, Abide with Me, 218

Lind, Jenny, 288

Lindley, My, 62

Linen Manufacture, 29, 56

Lister, Joseph, 344

Liszt, Franz, Christus, 255

Little, David, 74

— and Co., 74

Little, Cousins & Reach, 74

Liverpool, Bank of, & Martins Ltd., 77,
7 :

— Philharmonic Orchestra, 258, 259

— police, 293

— St George’s Hall, 300

Lloyd, Ann (Wade), 27

— Edward, 221, 222

— Col. Thomas, 27

Lloyds Bank, 65-6

Lockwood & Mawson, Bradford, 280

Lodge, Richard, 25, 58

— Thomas, 57*, 58

Lodge & Arthington, 57*

Loidis, region of, 12

London, 120%, 133, 153

— banks, 60, 73; 75-9; 77» 795 81, 82, 83*

— Crystal Palace, 277, 295

— Euston Station Hall, 300

— Guildhall, 300

— Hanover Chapel, 301

— Institute of Bankers, 63, 67

— police, 292

London & Northern Bank (1862), 82

London & Northern Bank (1898), 82, 83

London & Westminster Bank, 74

London & Yorkshire Bank, 83

London City & Midland Bank, 73, 76,
EOmeN

London County Westminster & Parr’s
Bank, 60*

London Joint Stock Bank, 77

London Joint City & Midland Bank, 77

London Philharmonic Orchestra, 253

394

London Symphony Orchestra, 236, 240,
242, 245", 249, 26%, 265*

London University, 29

Longley, Charles Thomas, archbp, 116

Low Hall (Nether Yeadon), 29

Lowell (U.S.A.), Middlesex Factory,
370

Luccock, J: D., 281 2;\-206

Lunn, Kirby, 230*

Lupton, Darnton, 288, 290

—H. W., 220

— Jonathan, 103

— Joseph, 65

Lyndhurst, John Singleton, Lord, 109

M., JOHN, of Bolton, 342

Maas, My, 217

McAlpine, William, 265, 269

McAtamny, John, 374

Macaulay, family, 95

— Thomas Babington,

94-6, 102

McCall, William, 377

McCarthy, D.. W..; 74

Macfarren, Siyv George Alexander,

Joseph, 213*: King David; 218;- St

John the Baptist, 211

McInnes, Campbell, 234

Mackenzie, Siv Alexander C., Story of
Sayid, 219; The Witch’s Daughter,
227

McKenzie, Marian, 224

Mahler, Gustav, Lieder eines fahren-
den Gesellen, 269; Symphony no. 2,
205

Malton, banks, 60, 76, 78

Manchester, 300

— charter, 13

— factory reform movement, 95-6, 98,

TOD. 116

Lord, 90, -©2,

— police, 293

Manchester & Liverpool District Bank,
84

Mann's Emigrant’s Complete Guide,
352, 364

Marmoutier, abbey, 9*

Marriott, Annie, 217

Marris; Francis, 67, 71*

Marsden, Alderman Henry Rowland,

210
Marshall, family, 99, 118
— Eliza, 93
— James Garth, 29, 30, 108, 336
— Jane (Pollard), 30*
— Jeremiah, 29
— John, of Low Hall, Nether Yeadon,

29
— John, flax-spinner, 28-30, 88-9, 94, 96
— John, junior, 90, 92
Marshalls’ Mills, 93, 95, 108, 118
Martin, St, of Tours, 9
— Arabella (afterwards Wade), 27*
— William, 27
Martins Bank, 77

INDEX

Massenet, J. E. F., Visions, 223

Mathers, Joseph, 326

Matthews, Denis, 258, 263

Maude, Edmund, 315

Maude & Co., Leeds, 314

Mawde, Joana (Cliffe), 23*

— John, 23

Mayne, Siv Richard, 292

Meanwood, 130*, 135

— church, 33

— Hall, 58

Mears and Stainbank, bell founders, 32

Meiers, —, 157

Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Felix, Elijah,
205%, 207, Zil, 215, 217, 216, 220, 222,
224, 226, 232, 239; ‘Hebrides’ Over-
ture, 231; “Italian’’ Symphony, 223;
Lobgesang (Hymn of Praise), 211,
218, 22, 222, 224° Pigno: Concerto;
206; Psalm 98, 226; Psalm 114 (‘‘When
Israel out of Egypt came’’), 245; St
Paul, 211; Walpurgis Night, 213, 223

Menges, Isolde, 249

Menuhin, Hephzibah, 267

— Yehudi, 267

Methodists, 376

— Methodist New Connexion, 331, 332,
359, 370

— Primitive Methodist Connexion, 378

— Wesleyan Methodists, 331, 379-80

— Wesleyan reform meetings, 353

Middlesbrough, banks, 77

Midgley, S. T. & Son, 163

Midland Bank, 76, 77

— Banking Co., 82*, 83

Miles, Maurice, 262*, 263, 266

Mills, Watkin, 221

Milner, John, 71

Milnes, Richard

Houghton), 294

Millwood (Ohio), 371

Mitchell, Ena, 259*

Minchin, Walter, 345

Moiseiwitsch, Benno, 260

Molesworth, Sizv William, 106

Monasteries, dissolution of, 22, 23

Moore, John, of Greenhead, 25

— Mary, 25

Morison, Elsie, 265

Morley, John, 19

Morley Town Hall, 302

Morning Herald, 98

Morpeth, George Howard, viscount, 114

Morrison, Peter, 79

Motley, Thomas, 85

Mott, James, 355 —

— Lucretia (Coffin), 355

Mountford, Enoch, 361

Moussorgsky, M. P., Boris Godounov,
255, 257

Movement, The, 359 n

Moxon, Richard, 75

Mozart, Johann Wolfgang Amadeus,
Ana ‘“‘Aura, che intorno’’, 266

— Concertos: Piano Concerto in B flat,

Monckton (Lord

INDEX

no. 27, 258; Piano Concerto in C
minor, 245, 263; Coronation Piano
Concerto in D major, 256; Piano Con-
certo in D minor, 265; Piano Concerto
in E flat, 269; Concerto for Violin
and Viola in E flat, 250; Violin Con-
certo no. 4 in D, 254

— Coronation Mass, 265; “‘Glory,
Honour, Praise’, 218; Magic Flute
(overture), 217, 223, 235; Mass in C
minor, 253; Requiem Mass, 213, 222,
231, 244; A Short Freemasons’ Can-
tata, 257; Sinfonia Concertante for
Violin and Viola, 266

— Symphonies: 206; no. 29 in A major,
2562 RO. 361m ID, 253° no. 34-1 C,
250, 258; no. 39 in E flat major, 228;
no. 40-in G minor, 238, 262: no. 47
(J upiter’’), 223

Murdac, Henry, archbp, 4

Murray, Matthew, 29*

Musgrave, Benjamin, 283, 286 n

— James, 68

Musical Festivals, 200-70

NASH, Heddle, 253%, 256", 262

National Mercantile Bank, 83

— Provincial and Union Bank of Eng-
land, 83*

— Provincial Bank, 83*

— Provincial Bank of England, 82-3

Nelson, William Magson, 80*

Netherwood, J., 346-7

= joseph; 351, 309, 375

Newcastle upon Tyne, 285

— banks, 82*

New Grange (Kirkstall), 22-35

Nicholls, Agnes (Lady Harty), 225, 226*,
227, “2200220, 230°) 232; 233;. 234",
235, 238

Nicholson, George, 64

— James, 64

— John, 92

— Lucas, 64*

— Stephen, 65*, 380

— Thomas, 65*

Nicholson and Upton, attorneys, 64

Nicholson, Brown & Co., 64-5

Nickols, William, 139, 140, I4I, 142,
143, 144*

Nicoll, Robert, 104, 106

Nikisch, Arthur, 236,
244

Nissen, Hermann, 253, 255

Noble, —, 301

— Dennis, 245, 247*, 250, 256, 260

= fonn, 350

— Joseph, 359

Noordewier-Reddingius,
238

Northern and Central Bank of England,
7s

Northern Star, The, 107*, 117, 354, 376

Nottingham, 97, 112

Novakovski, 263

2377, 230; 240,

Mme A., 237,

393

Nunns, Rev. Thomas, 113
Nussey, Obadiah, 75

OASTLER, Richard, 87-91, 93,
99-109, JOE) SY)

— Societies, 108

— Testimonial Fund, 109, III-12

O’Connor, —, 367, 372*

— Feargus, I07, I1I5

Ohio, 356-7, 370-4

Old Bank, See Beckett & Co. (Beckett’s
Bank)

Oldbury
at, 374 ‘

Operative Conservative Society, 104-5,
109

Organists, See Bairstow, Sir E. C.,
Benton, A., Burton, Rw S., Creser,
Wm., Fricker, H. AggaHunt, D:,
Parratt, W., Spark, Wm., Tysoe, A.

Organs, 206*, 210, 217, -220, 224,258,
260-I, 281, 301

Orloff, Nicholas, 251

Ov-Rourke, John, 112, 175

Osburn, William, junior, 93-4, 97, 108,
117

Oxford University,

Owen, Robert, 102

Oxley, Henry, 65*, 66

— James Walker, 65*

PAGANEL, Ralph, 22

Paget, Eleanor, 241, 242

Pakeman, Robert, 23

Palestrina, G. P. da, Assumpta est
Maria, 244; Surge illuminare, 225

Paley, Mr, 187

Palliser, Miss, 224

Park Hill, 28

Parker, Frye, 231, 235

— Herbert, 228

Parks, Thomas, 349

Parratt, Walter, 217, 218

Parry, Sir Hubert, Blest Pair of Sirens,
224, 232, 241, 248; ‘‘The Glories of
Our Blood and State’’, 243; Jeru-
salem, 243; Job, 247; ‘‘The Love that
Casteth out Fear’’, 229; Ode on St
Cecilia's Day, 22%: Ode on vthe
Nativity of Christ, 240; Ode to Music,
223, 236; Pied Piper of Hamelin, 235;
A Song of Darkness and Light, 225-6;
Songs of Farewell, 240, 252, 254;
Symphonic Variations, 240; Voces
Clamantium, 227

Parsons, Walter, 35

— William, 254*

Passelew, family, 18

— Robert, 18

Patey, Madame, 217

Patten, Wilson, 97-8

Patterson, John, 143

Patzak, Tulius, 266*

Paul, William, 105

— William (Oak Tannery), 140, 157

95-7,

(Staffs.), Christian Brethren

Christ Church, 22

394

Paxton, Joseph, 277

Payne, Eddison & Ford (Leeds), 328

— Ford & Warren (Leeds), 316

Paynel, Maurice (Maurice de Gant), 13,
A, 15", ) 00

Peace Movement, 333, 334

Pears, Peter, 263, 265*, 267, 268

Peel, Siv Robert, 108-9, 114, 276

— William, 75

Peitevin, William, de Hadingeleia, 22*

Pemberton, Harry, obituary, 271

People, The, 331-78

Perfect, John, 66; 67*, 68, 71

— John Crowder, 67, 68

— William, 66, 67*, 68, 71

Perfect, Hardcastle & Co. (Leeds), 67

Perfect, Hotham & Co. (Pontefract),
67; See also Crowder, Perfect & Co.

Perfect, Seaton & Co. (Pontefract), 66

Perfect, Seaton, Brooke & Co. (Hud-
dersfield), 66

Perfect’s Bank, 66-8, 71, 85, 315

Perring, Robert, 88, 90-1, 93, 104, 108-9

Peterborough Cathedral, 32

Petri, Egon, 256

Petworth Emigration Society, 337

Philharmonia Orchestra, 267

Philips & Co., 149

Phrenologists, 368

Pickard, 4El. JHL,. 223.4237

Pickering, banks, 60, 76

Pitch, of Town Hall Organ, 260-1

“Plas Plots’’; 109

Pocklington, bank, 59, 60

Political Union, The, 90, 95, 97

Pollard, Jane (afterwards Marshall), 30*

— William, 30

Pontefract, banks, 66-7

— charter, 13

— Ropergate, 67

Pool Bank, 301

Poor Law Amendment Act,
106-8, ITO, II2

Portsmouth, Town Hall, 302

Post Office Savings Bank, 85

Poteman, Ralph, 18

Potternewton, 135

— Quarries, 312

Potters’ Emigration Society, 345, 359,
860-1; 364, 373

Potters’ Examiner, The, 361

Pottersville, Wis., 360-1, 373

Potts & Sons, 32

Power, Alfred, 98-9

Prentice, Archibald, 351-2

Price, Thomas, 76*

Primrose, William, 259

Prince, John Critchley, 343

Pritchard, John, 268

Procter, Henry, 157

— Norma, 267, 269

Pudsey, 100

Pullein, John, 316

Pullon, Winifred, 236

1834, 103,

INDEX

Purcell, Henry, bicentenary,
Cecilia Ode, 244

QUAKERS, 355
RACHMANINOV, Sergei, Piano Con-

certo no. 2 in C minor, 233, 244, 251;
Symphony in E minor, 233

223 me Sit

Radford, Robert, 234, 235*, 236* 238,
239", 240, 241, 242, 244

Radical Association, 104

Radicals, Radicalism, 87-91, 94-7, 99-

£00, 104-9, III, 115, 117-8, 335-0, 339,
340, 352) 353, 375°

Raff, Joachim, The End of the Worid,
217

Ramsden, James, 86

— Richard, 345 n

Rand, William, 71

Ravel, Maurice, Daphnis and Chloe, 259

Rawdon, 29

— Rawdon Hill, 284-5, 301

Rawson, Mrs, 30*

Rawsthorne, Alan, Piano Concerto no.
2, 265

Read, Edward, 292

Reed, William Henry, 244, 246, 250

— Lincoln Imp, 242

Reeves, Sims, 206

Reform Act, 1832, 88, 90, 94-5

Reformers Almanack, 335

— Companion to the Almanacs, 335,
336*, 338-40

Rents of Cottages (Leeds), 186-9, 193,
194-5

Renwick, John, 370

Republicanism, 375

Respighi, Ottorino, Fountains of Rome,
241; Pines of Rome, 244

Reynolds, G. W. M., 275 n

— Rev. H. R., 208

Rhodes, Peter, 143*

— Timothy, 65

Richards, George, 267

Richardson, —, 315

— Cavie, 90, 96-100

— James, 206

— Percy, 240; 242, 254

Richardson & Metcalfe (Knaresborough),
316

Richardson, Holt, &, iGo.
Pickering), 76

Richter, Dy Hans, 237;. 230°, .243

(Whitby and

Rider, William, 95, 99-103, 106, 108,
LEE ett 3) ai

juevatlx Abbey, 273%), 4%,o 5,168

Rimsky-Korsakov, N. A., “Antar’’

Symphony, 250;
ee 242;
35 242

Ripley, Gladys, 255, 259*

Ripon, bank, 76

— bishop of, See Bickersteth, Robert

Robert Town, 100

Cog:-:d O7, 53240;
Tsar Saltan, no.

INDEX

Roberts, Samuel, 352

Robinson & Mortimer, 149

Roche Abbey, 6

Rogers, Jonathan, 365

— Thomas, 344

Ross, Benjamin, 343

— David, 112

— James, 92

Rossini, Gioacchino, Overture, William
Tell, 223; Petite Messe Solennelle,
250, 262; La Scala di Seta, 262; Stabat
Mater, 206, 207, 211, 218

Rotherham, 28

Rothwell, Evelyn
263

Roundhay, 327

— Park, 65

Roussel, Albert, Symphony no. 2 in B
flat, 256

Roy, W), 1:,. 354, 366

Royal Commission on Industrial Lab-
our (1833), 98-101

— Philharmonic Orchestra, 262

Rubbra, Edmund, Morning Watch, 262

Rumford, Kennerley, 233, 234

Russell, — (Oatland Mills), 149

— Francis, 249*,. 251, 2547, 255

— Lord John, 114

(Lady Barbirolli),

SADDLERS, 125*, 129

Sadler, Benjamin, 108

— Michael Thomas, 90-91, 101-5, 116-17

St Albans Abbey, 32-3

Saint-Saéns, Charles C., Africa,
La Fiancée du Timbalier, 228

Sala, Antoni, 249,

Saltaire, 280

Salter & Salter, 149, 163

Sammons, Albert, 241, 249, 250

Sanders & Sons, bankers, Whitby, 55

Santley, Charlies, 213, 217

Sarasate, Pablo, 221

Sargent, Siv Malcolm, 249, 250, 251,
253,254,255 250, 257, 259; 259.0205",
266

Sauer, Emil, 223

Saunders, —, I10

— Samuel, 366, 367-8, 371, 372

Savings Bank Act, 80-1

Sawer, Bailey & Co., bankers, 85

SautOneg..wloyd, 232

Senate, . F_,.162

Scarth, James, 78

Schidlof, Peter, 266

Schnabel, Karl Ulrich, 255

Schofield, Isaac, 353, 354

Scholes, Percy, 34

Schools, 29

Schubert, Franz, Mass in A flat major,
262; Mass in E flat, 221; Overture,
Rosamunde, 225; Symphony no. 4 in
C minor, 268; Symphony no. 9 in C
MAIOY, 230-1, 247, 265

Schultz, Augustus, 156

220

395

Schumann, Robert, Paradise and the
Peri, 211, 223; Piano Concerto in A
minor, 257; Sonata no. 2 in D minor,
268; Symphonies: no. I, 223; no. 3,
234, 240; NO. 4, 220, 265

Schwarz, Rudolf, 268, 269*

Schwarzkopf, Elisabeth, 265-6

Scott, Cyril, La Belle Dame Sans Merci,
253

— Henry, 63

— Margaretta, 263

— William Fenton, 63-4

— William Lister Fenton, 64*

Scott (Fenton), Binns, Nicholson &
Smith, bankers, 63-4, 67

Scotland Mill, 29*

Scriabin, Alexander, Divine Poem, 243

— Poéme dExtase, 240

— Prometheus, 241, 245

Scruton, Edward, 105, 112

Seaton, John, 66

— John Fox, 66

— Robert, 66

Seaton, Foster & Co., bankers, Selby,
66

Selby, bank, 66

Select Committee on the Operation of
the Factory Acts, 1840, 107

Seneca Falls, New York, 369-70

Sewing Machines, 137, 139

Shakers, 336

Shann, Edith (afterwards Wade), 24

— John, 24

Shaw, My, 235

— John Hope, 283

— Joseph, 344

— Matthew, 345

Shearman, John, 334

Sheepscar, 307

Sheepskins, 124, 132

Sheffield, 284

— bank, 82

— choral societies, 264, 265

— Owenite Hall of Science, 353

Sheffield Philharmonia Chorus, 265

Sheppard, George, 359

— Honor, 268, 269

Shoe- and Bootmaking, 138, 146, 147,
TAS, E50, 51,9 152, 10%

Shoemakers and Bootmakers, 134, 135,
136-7, 148, 163

— apprentices, 138, 148

— “‘bespoke’’, 147

— capital, 148, 149*, 150

Ord) OES 20)

—firms: Adelstone, D., 1409, 163;
Barrows, E. & Son, 147; Blakeys,
750° Brambhill, JR. .7.,..1483- .Broad-
bent, E., 149; Conyers, W. H., 135,
136; Ellis, John and Joseph (Rails-
ford Factory), .14931 Halliday... John,
149, 150, 163; Horton, 120; Jackson,
Wm., 148, 161; Jackson and ‘Bass-
ford, 163; Kendall;. .Robert, 123%
Midgley, S. T. & Son, 163; Phillips

396

& Co., 149; Robinson & Mortimer,
149; Russell (Oatland Mills), 149;
Salter & Salter, 149, . 163; Spurr,

Robert, 135, 138; Stead & Simpson,
135, 136, 149, 150, 163*; Stewart, J.
& Jj. H., 148; Taylor, Robert, 123;
Walker Bros. (Lady Bridge), 149

— number of employers, 120, 123, 124*,
125", 135", 147, Fst: number. of
workers, 120,,122%, 324", 225)
135, 130", 46, 147,449") U5",
output, 126; wives employed,

134,
161;
136,

139

Short Time Committees, 88-94, IoI, 105,
108, III, 116

— Bradford, 89, 99

— Calverley, 100

— Farsley, 100

— Huddersfield, 88-9, 99, 104

— Leeds, 88-9, 91-4, 96-102, 106-9, 115-18

— Pudsey, 100

— Stanningley, 100

— Lancashire, 102, I14, 116

— Yorkshire Central Committee,
105, 108, II3-4, 116

Shostakovich, Dimitri, Symphony no.
I, 260

Sibelius, Jean, The Origin of Five, 256;

93-4,

Symphony no. 2 in D, 254; Sym-
phony no. 5 tn E flat, 263; The
Tempest, 254

Sigston, James, 380

Sikes, Siyv Charles William, 85

Silk, Dorothy, 240, 241, 242, 246*

Sinclair, Rev. William, 112

Skinners, 125

Slade, William, 305

Sladen, Victoria, 260

Slavery, Abolition Movement, 333-4,

339, 354-5, 358, 373

Smart, Henry, The Bride of Dunkerron,
257" Una, 23

Smetana, Bedrich, Lustspiel (overture),
229

Smiles, Samuel, 107

Smith, C. Alderson, 289

— George, 64*, 67*, 71, 85

— George, junior, 85

— Henrietta (afterwards Wade), 27

— Tohn, 68

— John, of Burley House, Leeds, 509*

— John Metcalfe, 509*

— Si John, bart, of Newland Park, 27

— Jonathan, 367

— Toseph, 344

— Kathleen Frise, 241

— Nicholas, 64

— Samuel, 91, 93, III-13, ‘117

— Samuel (Meanwood Tanneries), 144,
TA5

— Thomas, of Huntington Hall, 71

Smithies, Charles, 79

Smithson, John, 88, 92, 109, 111-13

Smyth, Dame Ethel, Hey, nonny no,
241

INDEX

Sobrino, Madame, 227, 229*

Socialism, 358-9

— Owenites, 360

Society for Promoting National Re-
generation, 102

Somerby Park, Gainsborough, 31, 58

Somervell, Arthur, IJntimations of
Immortality, 230

Souez, Ina, 256

Southey, Robert, 97

Soyland, 23

Spark, Fred R., 223, 289

— William, 206, 209*, 211, 214, 215, 218",
288

Spencer, Isaac, 71*

Spohr, Louis, Concerto for Two Violins
in B minor, 226; Last Judgment, 216

Spurr, Robert, 135, 138

Staffordshire emigrants, 371

Stanford, Sir Charles Villiers, 225, 226,
235*, 236; Concerto for Violin in D
major, 228; Five Songs of the Sea,
228, 231-2; Heraclitus, 243; Irish
Rhapsody no. 1, 238; Last Post, 225;
Revenge, 219; Songs of the Fleet, 234,
243; Stabat Mater, 230, 236; Te Deum,
224; The Voyage of Maeldune, 221;
Wellington, 234

Stanley, Edward George, Lord, See
Derby, Edward George Stanley,
earl of

Stansfeld, Judge, 80

Stanningley, 100

Stead, Gs F..Si44,/° 457

— George, 267

— William, 140

Stead & Simpson,
163*

Stephens, Joseph Rayner, 107

Stevens, Horace, 249, 252

Stewart, J. & J. H., 148

— Sheila, 243

Stiles-Allen, 248, 249

Stitch-Randall, Teresa, 267

Strafford, Norman, 240, 242, 248, 252,
254, 257

Strauss, Richard, Death and Transfig-
uvation, 227, 245; Don Juan, 233, 265;
Don Quixote, 249; Ein Heldenleben,
247; Oboe Concerto, 263; Salome
(Dance of the Seven Veils), 262;
Symphonic Poem, 241; Taillefer, 238;
Till Eulenspiegel, 241, 254; Wandrers
Sturmlied, 257

Stravinsky, Igor, Apollo, 247; Oedipus
Rex, 265; Symphony of Psalms, 269

Stubbs, John, 99-100

Sturge, Joseph, 336

Suddaby, Elsie, 241, 242, 244, 247%, 250,
251, 252, 253, 254, 257°, 250

Suggia, Mme Guilhermina, 243*

Sullivan, Se Arthur, 214*, 215-7, 218,
222, 223, 224; David and Jonathan,
214; Golden Legend, 218-9, 221, 223,
229; In Memoriam (overture), 225;

135, 336, \ 149,.- 359,

INDEX

Macbeth, 221 (incidental
Martyr of Antioch, 215
Suliot, T. E., 355
Swailes, Mary, 232, 233
Swallow, Keith, 267
Swan, Clough & Co., York, 59-60
Swithenbank, David, 93
Szigeti, Joseph, 254

TANNERIES: Beckworth, Wm. (Via-
duct Tannery), 144*, 159; Cheater,
W., 140; Conyers, W. H. (Waterloo
Tannery), 144, 145; Dixon; J.,; 158;

music);

Flitch, J. J. (Buslingthorpe), 145,
157, 158 n, 159; Hepworth, W., 158;
Jackson, Wm. (Buslingthorpe), 145,
159; Kitchen, Edward (Cliff Tan-

nery), 145, 158, 159; Meiers (Beeston),
157; Nickols, William (Joppa Tan-
nery & Hill Top Tannery, Bramley),
139, 140, I4I, 142, 143, 144*; Paul,
William (Oak Tannery), 140, 157;
Salter and Salter, 149; Smith, Samuel
(Meanwood Tanneries), 144, 145;
Stead, C. F., 144, 157; Stead, Wm.
Leather

(Sheepscar Works), 140;
Walker, W. (Aire Tannery), 158;
Wilson, Walker & Co. (Sheepscar
on Leather Works), 142, 144",
15

Tanners & Tanning, 120, I2I, 122, 123,
E24, 125", 120): 226,061 30™, 5375: 239,
£40", U4ut, 142"5 2 143), + 151%, 21252",

E53", 154) (055, ¥50",7 157,158, 080; See
also Leather

Tapscott, William & Co.,
350-1

Tate, Joseph, 370

Taylor, Joseph Deems,
Looking Glass, 244-5

— Ralph, 91-6

— Robert, 123

— W. Cooke, 345-6

Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilitch, Francesa da
Rimini, 225, 242; Piano Concerto no.
I, 237; Romeo and Juliet, 241; Seren-
ade for Strings, 252; Suite no. 3 in
G, 255; Symphony no. 4, 235, 248;
Symphony no. 5, 237, 245

Teale, Thomas Pridgin, 69

Temperance Emigrant Association, 362

— Movement, 331, 333, 338, 348

Ten Hours Act, 1847, 116,118

— Committees, 108

— Movement, 809-118

Tenters, 18

Tertis, Lionel, 250

Thackrah, Charles Turner, 91, 93

Thirsk, banks, 64, 71, 73, 76-7

Thomas, James, 361

— John, 300

— Marjorie, 262, 265, 266

— Spencer, 231

Thompson, George, 352

— Richard, 337

Liverpool,

Through the

397

Thompson, Elam & Co., 77

Thomson, Charles Edward Poulett
(Baron Sydenham), 104-5

Thoresby, Ralph, 8, 24, 25, 26

— correspondence, 36-53 (list arranged
alphabetically, and not included in
this index)

Thornhill, Thomas, 87

Times, The, 296

Tithe Acts, 1836-91, 22

Titley, Anthony, 277

Titterton, Frank, 253, 255

Todd, Jabez, 362

Todmorden, 106, 114

Tolls, 17

Tolpuddle Martyrs, 102-3

Topcliffe Mill, 73

Tories, 88-91, 93-6, 102, 106, 108-9, III,
I16

Trade Unions, 94-5, 101-3

Trant, William, 295

Tubb, Carrie, 236, 239

Turner, George, 361, 376-7

Turquard, William, 70

Tyrer, Anderson, 241

Tysoe, Albert, 240, 242, 245

ULLEY, nr Rotherham, manor, 28*

Union Bank, 64-5

—of London & Smiths Bank, 83

Unitarians, 296, 332, 333, 376, 377

United Counties Bank, 78

United States Emigrants’
Society, 354

United States of America, emigration
40, 331-78

— books about, 352-3

— places chosen, 341-2

Universalists, 372 n

Upton, See Nicholson & Upton

Urquhart, David, 353

— Rev. G., 113

Protection

VALLERIA, Madame, 217

Vallin, Ninon, 253, 255

Van der Gucht, Jan, 257

Van Rooy, Mr, 237, 239*

Varley, Thomas, 316

Verdi, Giuseppe, O Don Fatale, 238;
Quattro Pezzi Sacri, 268; Recitative
and Aria, 248; Requiem, 225, 237,
240, 253, 259; Te Deum, 257, 258

Vickers, William, 71

Victoria, queen, 27, 204, 207, 200, 224,
288-07

Vito, Gioconda de, 262

Vyvyan, Jennifer, 265, 266, 269

WADE, family, 24, 25, 28*
— Ann (Allanson), 27%, 28*
— Ann (afterwards Lloyd), 27
— Anne, 27

— Anne (Calverley), 26

— Anthony (d. 1616), 24*

398

Wade, Anthony (d. 1683), 25-6

— Arabella (Martin), 27*

— Arabella, junior, 27*

— Beatrix (Killingbeck), 26*

— Benjamin (d. 1671), 24-5

— Benjamin (s. of Anthony and Mary),
25-6

— Benjamin (s. of Walter and Ann),
20%) 25

— Benjamin (s. of Walter and Beatrix),
26

— Edith (Shann), 24

— Elizabeth, 27

— Frances, 27

— George, 27

— Harriet, 27

— Henrietta (Smith), 27

— John, 25

— Judith (Foxcroft), 23, 24*

— Mary (Moore), 25

— Mary (Waterhouse), 25

— Mary Ann, 27

— Samuel, 24

— Sara, 23, 24

— Thompson, 27

— Walter I, 26*

— Walter II, 26, 27*

— Walter III, 27

— William, 27

Wages (Leeds), 138, 192-5

Waddington, George, 307-8, 313-5, 324-5

Wagner, Richard, Faust Overture, 239;
Flying Dutchman, 223, 248, 257;
Goétterddmmerung, 239, 244; Lohen-
grin, 228, 244, 255; Die Meistersinger,
227, 222, 225, 230, 235) 230, 241-2, 245,
251, 252, 255; Parsifal, 226, 228, 239,
241, 248; Siegfried, 230; Tannhduser,

218, 221; Tristan und Isolde, 242;
Die Walkiive, 230, 234

Wakefield, 123*, 127, 129", 130,- 131",
134, 327

— banks, 75

Walker, — (Supt. Metropolitan Police),
292

— Edith, 237, 238

— Gordon, 246

==> fo. Wig 334

— Norman, 260, 265

— W., 158

— William, 62, 92

Walker Bros., 149

Wallace, William, 234

Waller, Robert, 76

Walpole, Spencer, 202, 2907 n

Walton, Siv William, Belshazzar’s
Feast, 249, 260, 269; Concerto for
Viola, 259; Coronation March, 257;
Facade, 247; In Honour of the City
of London, 256; Scapino (overture),

265
Wardle, Rev. IX., 113
Warwood, Emmanuel, 374
Water Lane Mill, Holbeck, 209, 31
Waterloo, commemoration of, 29

INDEX

Watson, Claire, 268

Waverley Abbey (Surrey), 2, 6

Wayd, Lawrence, 24

— Sara (Foxcroft), 23, 24

Webb; C. H., 353

— Richard David, 355

Weber, Carl Maria von, Abu Hassan
(overture), 266; Euryanthe (over-
ture), 228, 241, 259; Oberon, 237, 269

Webster, Robert, 19

Weekly Newspaper (Douglas Jerrold),

349

Weelkes, Thomas, ‘‘As Vesta was from
Latmos Hill descending’’, 233

Weetwood, 28, 123

— Grange, 34

— Hall, 25

— ‘‘Smethes’’, 23

Wells, —, phrenologist, 369

—J. D., 292

West Riding Union Banking Co., 77

West Virginia, 367, 370, 371, 372

West Yorkshire Bank, 66

Westminster. Abbey Handel Commem-
oration Festival, 203

Westminster Bank, 56-60

Wetherby, 306, 316

Weyland the Smith, story of, 11

Weylisch, Ljuba, 259

Wharncliffe, James Archibald Stuart-
Wortley-Mackenzie, Lord, 109

Whigs, 87, 90, 95-6

Whitaker, John, 65

Whitby, banks, 55, 76*, 78

White, Mary, 349

— William, 349

Whitehead, F. F., 80

— George, 73

— James, 344

Whiteley, Widow, 187

Wibsey Moor, 100

Wickham, JE W-,-s0

— Henry, 62*, 63*

— Rev. Henry, 62

Wicks, Alan, 264

Widdop, Walter, 242, 244*, 248, 252

Wilkinson, J. and T., 86

— John, 107

— Jonathan, 371*

— Thomas Jowett, 86

Wilkinson and Kendall, 86

Willans, James Edward, 73

— William, 86

Willets, Joseph, 375

William IV, king, 290

Williams, Harold, 245, 246, 250*

— Ralph Vaughan, Benedicite, 253;
Dona Nobis Pacem, 257; Fantasia on
a Theme by Thomas Tallis, 264;
Pastoral Symphony, 247; Sancta
Civitas, 265; Sea Svmpbhony, 233,
243; Symphony no. 6, 263; Toward
the Unknown Region, 230, 249

[Williams], Tom, 259

— W. Marsden, 228, 232

INDEX

Williamsons, varnish manufacturers,
Ripon, 76

Willis, Constance, 255

Wilson, family, 189

— Edmund, 219

— Elizabeth (afterwards Beckett), 56

—H. Lane, 228

— John, & Son, 58

— Joseph, 56

— Mrs Martha, 379

— Rev. R., 113

— Richard, 65

— Steuart, 242, 245, 246*, 256, 257

— Thomas, 278

— Thomas (banker), 62

— William, 58*

Wilson, Walker & Co., 142, 144*, 158

Wisconsin, 348, 360-1, 365, 369, 370, 373

Wolf, Hugo, 238

Wood, Anne, 263

— Anne (Buck), Lady, 28

— Dy Charles, A Ballad of Dundee, 228;
A Dirge for Two Veterans, 226, 243

— Ethel, 225

— Siv Francis Lindley, bart, 28

— Mrs Henry J., 231*

Woodhall, nr Wetherby, 63, 64

Woodhouse, Siv James T., 73

Woodward, Richard, 358

Wordsworth, Dorothy, 30*

— William, 30*

Working Men’s Cottages, 165-199

Wortley, 135, 338) 333, 370

— J. Barker’s Steam Press at, 333

Wry TP .,.353

Wright, Henry Carey, 354, 355

— Thomas, 63

Wright & Hemingway, 63

399

YATES, Tom, 308-9, 313-14, 325

Yeadon, 29

— Low Hall, Nether Yeadon, 29

York, 94, 127, 128, 130, 133, 134, 204

— abbey of St Mary, 3

— banks, 59-60, 76-8

— Chamberlain of, 64

— Holy Trinity Priory;-9*, 22*

— Minster, 6

— Music Festival, 201-2;

— police, 293

— weavers, I9

York and East Riding Bank, 60

— City & Banking Co., 77

— City & County Bank, 67-7

— Union Banking Co., 78

Yorkshire, factory reform movement,
88, 93-4, 96,/ 100, 102, 105, 114

— West Riding, 64, 65, 292, 293

Yorkshire Agricultural & Commercial
Bank, 72

— Agricultural & Commercial Banking
Co., 78-9

— Archaeological Society, 23 1, 36, 37,
8

3

— Banking Co., 73*, 77

— College, 158

— District Bank, 72*

— District Banking Co., 67*, 68, 71-2,
85

— Penny Bank, 79-82

— Penny Savings Bank, See Yorkshire
Penny Bank

— Symphony Orchestra, 262*, 265*, 266*

— Union of Mechanics’ Institutes, 291

Young & Lovatt, Wolverhampton, 280

ZANESVILLE (Ohio), 371
— Universalist Church, 372

tai seat! ety uA & ; var .
a¢ bow = 7 7 : h - iw } ; . . ee ? Beas! e
ied ikivtuna) ¢ ele | Eee “tet\y seabed ieee a
a oo : ; oo a

a

~~ 4 Vine 41 VGA STs ine ye :

.— x
ae | Lt Le oo Gael! aa ee

/ | i . ‘ en el : a ee eee ae
ew 4 ae | ~ aes = te Uy
ae ee, oe Sst
: “oe :
i“ Ay, ‘ oe ates :
mel deh 92 ois S" pSV EPT oem.
’ 7 nt .
4 x A PAS i Pata x ~ ean 4 ~\ 7.
em fe. eee
re a ioe ak aS

‘os hel Aye A? 7 Sau)

Peano. % SS

Co ee ." ve —
. Ss

x

ata
iva'* 7

Ly
A

a a

maT

- ue J

» ye
_

, a ( fi ’
earn é

7
o<
*

eet:

}
x
ae
aS
f ‘ ;
“9 nt